Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so

In 2001 a wave of Judeophobia swept violently over Europe; it coincided with the intensification of the al-Aqsa intifada from September 30, 2000. This simultaneity was not fortuitous. In Europe, governments, some of the Churches, and most of the media in fact approved of the 2nd intifada, using fine moral terms for what was a strategy of terror by the Palestinian leadership. The justification and negligence displayed toward these criminal aggressions amounted to an encouragement. The elimination of terrorist leaders was described as 'assassination' and the Hamas and other terrorists became 'fighters for freedom' and 'activists'. While Hamas was translated as a 'Resistance' movement, Israel was accused of 'state terrorism'. Especially in France this condemnation sanctioned the criminal acts committed mainly by immigrants of Arab-Muslim origin, against individuals and Jewish community ―――――

property. Even in 2003 the French government still refused to place Hezbollah on the list of terrorist organizations, Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin was sharply reprimanded by President Chirac for having said that Hezbollah was a terrorist organization.

The convergence between the specific policies of the European Union (EU) and the Palestinian Authority which it greatly finances, as well as with those policies of the Arab countries, seem to be the result of a long-term process. With slight nuances, the anti-Israel discourse that is heard simultaneously on both shores of the Mediterranean shows identical characteristics. This twenty-first century Judeophobia is rooted in a transnational European structure, born of a historical context and the Euro-Arab policy of the last thirty years. The European populations however remain, grosso modo, unconcerned even if the media have for decades subjected them to an ideology that demonized Israel.

Thus, Europeans run considerable risks of becoming both the toy and the victims of religious hatred, as well as of political and economic interests masked by the Arab-Israel conflict that is intentionally blown out of all proportions in order to hide the global jihad that also targets them. For the ideological structure of this new Judeophobia is imported from the Arab-Muslim world, even if it is expressed in the framework of a European discourse by three sectors: the political parties, the media, and the religious sector.

As will be seen below, the development of the Euro-Arab Dialogue brought considerable modifications in European societies. It has relayed Muslim Judeophobic anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism and its hatred of the West. It has facilitated the irrepressible Arab ambition to Islamize Europe, its history, and its culture – an ambition that some Islamist leaders, for example, are voicing in the very heart of London. Moreover, the strategy of the Dialogue urged the glorification of 'Palestinity', the vilification of Israel, the growing separation between Europe and America, and the flourishing of an imaginary version of Islamic religion, history and civilization in Western public opinion. It forced Europe to revise its interpretation of its own identity and history in order to harmonize them with the Islamic vision of Europe, and by this process, to undergo a self-inflicted Islamization.

The oil embargo: The trigger

After World War II, France – humiliated by the Vichy collaborationist government and the loss of its colonial empire – saw any ambitious role it may have had as a great power sharply reduced. The Franco-German union provided Charles de Gaulle with the means to ensure peace in Europe by reconciling traditional enemies, while in the 1960s the alliance with the Arab world enabled France – at an international level – to challenge American power. De Gaulle’s economic and strategic policy aimed at uniting the countries around the Mediterranean in an inter-dependent industrial bloc opposed to America. To achieve this plan, France strove to build an alliance with the Arab states. Hostility toward America and Israel was not only fed by the communist and leftist trends, but also by the heritage of pro-Nazi collaborators from the French Vichy regime, which had survived in the post-war decades, and permeated the French administration up to the highest ranks.

After the 1967 Six-Days war, France became the instigator of a European anti-Israel policy. She did not readily forgive Israel for its lightning victory over a coalition comprising Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the Palestinians – and supported by the entire Arab world. At international forums France voted in favour of Arab anti-Israel resolutions and backed a unilateral boycott of arms sales to the Jewish state (1969). At the European level, French diplomacy supported Arab interests, setting out to bend European policy in a pro-Arab, anti-Israel direction. In this context, France examined the concept of a Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) with Libya. (1)

The joint Egyptian-Syrian war against Israel in 1973 and the Arab oil embargo, utilized as a weapon of world pressure, favored French schemes. Mortified by the Arab defeat after a successful beginning, the Arab oil-producing countries met in Kuwait (October 16-17 ), where they decided unilaterally to quadrupled the price of oil, to reduce gradually by 5% each month their production of crude oil until the withdrawal of Israel from the territories the Arab had lost in their war of 1967 and failed to recover in their 1973 war. They imposed an embargo on deliveries destined to the countries considered friendly to Israel: the United States, Denmark, and the Netherlands. The consuming countries were classified as friendly, neutral, or enemy countries.

Panicked, the nine countries of the European Economic Community (EEC) immediately met in Brussels on November 6,1973 and tabled a joint Resolution based on their dependence on Arab oil; this Resolution was totally in line with the Franco-Arab policy in respect of Israel. (2)
The EEC introduced three new points in the Brussels resolution: 1. The inadmissibility of acquiring territory by force, already theoretically stated in UN Security Council Resolution 242; 2. An Israeli withdrawal to the lines of the 1949 armistice; 3. Inclusion of 'the legitimate rights of the Palestinians' in the definition of peace.

The first proposal seemed admirable but absurd since all territories were acquired by force. What constituted the legitimacy of states? Ottoman Palestine had been conquered by force in 1917 by the British. In the 1948 war against Israel, Egypt took Gaza by force and Abdullah’s Arab Legion had occupied Judea and Samaria by force, as well as the Old City of Jerusalem and the Hebrew University on Mt. Scopus, expelling all their Palestinian Jewish inhabitants. Moreover, all the countries that today are called Arab were originally conquered by Arab jihad armies. Were all these land conquests, imposed by force and war, also unacceptable? What criteria would determine the irreversibility of a conquest and an injustice – the occupation of land or its liberation? Did their indigenous non-Muslim populations “occupy” Spain and Portugal, Sicily, Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania and Armenia lands, or were they population of countries freed from dhimmitude? Is the State of Israel the legitimate expression of a free people, whose land had been Arabized and Islamized by one of the cruellest form of persecution against its indigenous Jewish population after the Roman-Byzantine occupation, or an injustice because it has suppressed this persecution and neutralised the evil power of the persecutors?

On the second point, Europe obligingly adopted the Arabs' denial of their own defeat in 1967, a war that they themselves had triggered after the 1948 invasion to eradicate Israel. In this way, the EEC set the seal on the Arab-Islamic interpretation of Resolution 242, because in fact this Resolution in its original and authoritative English version only refers to withdrawal from territories, an intentional choice of words on the part of those who conceived it. Judea and Samaria were not, henceforth, described as territories open to negotiation but as 'occupied Arab territories' that Israel had to evacuate immediately. But these territories had also been conquered by force in the 1948 war unleashed by Arab states. The combined Syrian, Jordanian and local Arab forces that seized them had also expelled all their Jewish Palestinian inhabitants and had confiscated all their land, houses and property.

The third point of the Resolution introduced an innovation into the Middle East conflict that would prove dramatic for Europe in the future. Until 1970, the expression “Palestinian people” did not exist in this context. People talked only about the Arabs in Palestine who were no different from Arabs in the twenty countries of the Arab League, particularly from the Arabs in Transjordan, that is to say from 78 per cent of the League of Nations designated Palestine. Great Britain detached this vast area in 1922 and created an exclusively Arab country, the newly named Emirate of Transjordan.

UN Security Resolution 242 recommended a solution to the refugee problems, which also implied the more numerous Jewish refugees who had fled from Arab lands, abandoning all their possessions. The creation of a “Palestine people” ex nihilo after the Arab oil embargo in 1973, would lead Europe to create its legitimacy, its history and a right – equivalent and even superior to Israel's – by resurrecting the theology of replacement, constantly nourished with propaganda demonizing Israel in order to justify its demise. This directed Europe along a path of active solidarity with the Arab policy of Israel’s elimination that involved the encouragement and legitimization of international terrorism embodied by the PLO.

The formation of an Euro-Arab Economic and Political bloc

The EEC's anti-Israel decision met the Arab conditions to open a dialogue with Europe, and it was rewarded by an immediate increase in oil supplies. Born of the oil embargo, the Euro-Arab Dialogue was set up from the start as a trade-off: the EEC countries undertook to support anti-Israel Arab policy, while in exchange they would benefit from economic agreements with the Arab League countries.(3) The Arab side demanded a European political commitment against Israel, subordinating the economic aspect of the dialogue to the political context of the Arab war against Israel. The economic domain was thus integrated within Euro-Arab political solidarity against Israel.

President Georges Pompidou, and Chancellor Willy Brandt confirmed the wish for a Dialogue at their meeting on November 26-27, 1973. Less than a month later the French president called a summit on December 15, 1973 in Copenhagen to examine the Middle East crisis and lay down the bases for cooperation between the Arab League countries and the EEC countries. Four Arab foreign ministers, invited to monitor the project, suggested various schemes

On June 10, 1974 the foreign ministers of the nine countries of the EEC, meeting in Bonn within the framework of political cooperation, adopted a text that specified the areas and means of developing their cooperation and their relations with the Arab countries. The areas involved were agriculture, industry, sciences, culture, education, technology, financial cooperation, and the civil infrastructure, etc.

In the course of the meetings that followed, the foreign ministers of the Nine laid the foundations of this cooperation with the Arab countries, according to an institutionalized structure linked to the highest authorities of each of the EEC countries. This formula made it possible to harmonize and unify the policy of the European Communities in their exchanges and their cooperation with the Arab League countries.

On July 31, 1974 in Paris, the first official meeting at ministerial level took place between the Kuwaiti foreign minister, the secretary-general of the Arab League, the president of the commission of the European Communities and the current president of the Community in order to discuss the organization of the Dialogue. The Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was then founded by the nine countries of the European Community with a view to strengthening the political, cultural and economical co-operation between Europe and the Arab world. All the major trends in European politics were represented in its Executive Committee that since met regularly every six months.

The Damascus Conference (September 14-17, 1974), organized by the inter-parliamentary Association of Euro-Arab Cooperation, brought together the members representing all the parliamentary parties of the EEC, except Denmark. The Arabs set out the political preconditions for agreements on economic cooperation with the western European countries. The economic area that interested the EEC was conditioned by the Arabs' political demands concerning the Middle East in accordance with the principle of barter, a fundamental principle of the Dialogue. The Arabs demanded:

1. The unconditional withdrawal of Israel to the 1949 armistice lines;

2. The Arabization of the Old City of Jerusalem which had been seized by force in 1948 and from which all the Jews had been expelled;

3. The association of the PLO and its leader Arafat in any negotiations. (4)

4. Pressure to be brought to bear on the United States by the EEC in order to bring it nearer to Arab policy and detach it from Israel.

The political aspect as an indispensable condition of the Dialogue was confirmed at the 7th Summit of the Arab Conference a month later (Rabat, October 1974). There it was recalled that the Euro-Arab Dialogue had to develop within the context of the “Declaration” of the 6th Summit of the Arab Conference in Algiers transmitted to Europe on November 28, 1973, which established the Arab political requirements concerning Israel. (5) For the Arabs, the Dialogue had to continue until its objectives were achieved. The political and economic aspects of this Euro-Arab cooperation were considered by them as interdependent.

A permanent secretariat of 350 members assigned to Euro-Arab cooperation was then created with its seat in Paris. The Euro-Arab Dialogue was structured into various committees charged with planning joint industrial, commercial, political, scientific, technical, cultural and social projects.

On June 10, 1975, a delegation from the European Economic Community (EEC) met with a delegation from twenty Arab countries and from the PLO based in Cairo. More than thirty countries were represented by a general committee at ambassadorial level and by numerous experts. The EEC and the secretariat of the Arab League were represented at the political level. The Jordanian spokesman of the Arab delegation, M. Nijmeddin Dajani, stressed the political aspect and implications of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The deal between the two parties was clearly defined: economic agreements with Europe in exchange for European alignment with Arab policy on Israel.

A Joint Memorandum of the Mixed Committee of Experts gave a first formulation of the general principles and aims of the Euro-Arab Dialogue.
In the course of the Luxembourg meeting a year later (May 18-20, 1976), the organization and procedure of the Euro-Arab Dialogue were defined and published in Appendix 4 of the final Communiqué. The Dialogue was composed of three organs: 1) the General Committee; 2) the Working Committees; 3) the Political Committee.

The General Committee consisted of the delegates of both sides, comprising officials of ambassadorial status, members of the League of Arab States and of the European Communities, of the general secretariat of the League of Arab States and of the Commission of the European Communities, as well as the co-presidents and rapporteurs of the Working Committees. The heads of the Arab and European delegations held the presidency of the General Committee jointly. The Committee was the central body of the Dialogue, and was in charge of the general conduct of the Dialogue as well as monitoring its developments in the different areas. It was responsible for its establishment, and for directing it toward the assigned political, cultural, social, technological and economic goals, as well as approving the program of the Dialogue and of its tasks. The varied commitments of the Committee were specified. Its sittings took place behind closed doors and without recorded minutes. At the end of each meeting the General Committee could publish a summary of the decisions taken and a common press release. (6)

The composition of the Working Committees followed the same principle: each group comprised experts and specialist technicians from the two sides, as well as representatives of the general secretariat of the League of Arab States and the Commission of the European Communities. Each of the two Arab and European groups appointed a president for each Working Committee. The Working Committees proceeded according to the instructions given by the General Committee concerning their mandates.

Each Working Committee could create specialized sub-groups whose experts were chosen in conjunction with the general secretariat of the League of Arab States and the Commission of the European Communities.
The Coordinating Committee was composed of representatives of the General Committee and of the general secretariat of the League of Arab States and of the European presidency, with the two parties presiding jointly. The Committee was responsible for coordinating the work of the various working parties under the direction of the General Committee. All information and documentation was transmitted by the general secretariat of the League of Arab States and the Commission of European Communities.

This briefly summarized structure established a symbiosis, an inter-penetration of Arab and European policies, requiring the involvement of the European states at the highest level. It is clear that Europe's hostile policy to Israel – standardized by the structures of the EEC – is not the result of mistaken judgements, of prejudices capable of being corrected. It rests on a politico-economic construction, meticulously prepared down to the smallest detail, and rooted in its multiform symbiosis with the Arab world.

In the years that followed, this collaboration was strengthened by meetings every six months and by various activities on an international scale: (Rome, July 24,1975; Abu Dhabi, November 27,1975; Luxembourg, May 18-20, 76; several meetings in Brussels in 1976; Tunis, February 10-12, 1977). The European members of the permanent secretariat of the Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation ( PAEAC) travelled frequently to the United States to attempt to influence America policy in favour of the PLO's claims, and against Israel. The Arabs demanded that Europe recognise Yasser Arafat as the Palestinian leader and a Palestinian state, the implementation of an international boycott of Israel, and a strategy of worldwide political and economic pressure in order to force the Jewish state to withdraw to the 1949 armistices lines. The Working Committee studied suitable methods to condition European and world public opinion to persuade it to support the PLO, whose Charter required the elimination of the State of Israel. According to Saleh al-Mani:

Despite the failure of the EAD, to result in recognition of the PLO the latter was, nevertheless, one of the most active supporters of the EAD. The PLO may have wanted to use the EAD as a channel for airing its demands, and in this regard it may have been successful.

Although failing short of achieving formal recognition for the PLO the EAD did, however, succeed in persuading the Europeans of the need to established a “homeland for the Palestinians” and in “associating” the PLO with future negotiations on the Middle East. Thus the EAD has served certain limited Arab objectives. (7)

This comment by al-Mani confirms the direct connection between the PLO and the EEC's economic transactions. In a speech on 26 August 1980, after describing the PLO's terrorist war in Lebanon, Beshir Gemayel – Lebanon’s future President-elect – denounced its disastrous role in Europe:

This is a recapitulation of the doings of those people [PLO] on whose behalf the chancelleries of the civilized world are striving throughout the year, and for whose favours the old nations of Europe are competing. (8)

It is clear that the PLO played a crucial role in the exchange of economic benefits that the Arab countries granted to Europe in return for political support in their war against Israel. EAD meetings concluded with declarations by the European delegation in line with those of Arab policy (London, June 9, 1977; Brussels, October 26-28, 1978): Israeli withdrawal to its 1949 borders, Israel's obligation to recognise the national rights of the Palestinians; the invalidation of all measures and decisions taken by Israel in the territories outside of the 1949 lines, including Jerusalem. Judea and Samaria are described as 'occupied Arab territories'.

The Israeli-Egyptian peace negotiations at Camp David (1977-78) under the wing of American president Carter, put a damper on the EAD, while the Arab League totally rejected them and expelled Egypt from its ranks. The Arab countries were furious with the success of American influence in the region to the detriment of the European diplomacy that they tried to control through economic cooperation. France abstained from recognising the peace agreements, whereas the other EEC countries accepted them, but – at French instigation – with reservations.

Meanwhile, the EAD resumed its activities and the 4th meeting of the General Committee in Damascus (December 9-11, 1978) approved the creation of a Euro-Arab center in Kuwait for the transfer of technology.

The Birth of Eurabia: a new political entity

Eurabia is the title of a review edited by the European Committee for Coordination of Friendship Association with the Arab World (Paris). It was published with the collaboration of Middle East International (London), France-Pays Arabes (Paris) and the Groupe d'Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva).

In its second issue (July 1975), Eurabia published the resolutions passed unanimously at Strasbourg by the general assembly of the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation on June 7-8, 1975. Membership of this Association comprised more than 200 Members of Parliament from western European countries, representing all shades of the political spectrum. In other words, the consensus for the program of Euro-Arab entente covered the whole of the European political scene.

Eurabia specified in its editorial: "the necessity for a political entente between Europe and the Arab world as a basis for economic agreements", and the obligation on the part of the Europeans to "understand the political as well as the economic interests of the Arab world". The Euro-Arab Dialogue had to express "a joint political will" [emphasis by the author]. This preliminary condition for any economic agreements with Arab League countries necessitated the creation in Europe "of a climate of opinion" favorable to the Arabs. The editorial stressed that this question had been examined by a large number of experts from the Association de Solidarité Franco-Arabe (Association of Franco-Arab Solidarity) and from the general assembly of the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation in Strasbourg:

If they really want to cooperate with the Arab world, the European governments and political leaders have an obligation to protest against the denigration of Arabs in their media. They must reaffirm their confidence in the Euro-Arab friendship and their respect for millennial contribution of the Arabs to world civilization. This contribution and its practical application will be one of the themes of our next issue. (Editorial)

Arab political demands concerning the conditions of the Dialogue were not limited exclusively to Israel. They also concerned Europe. M. Tilj Declerq, Belgian member of the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, submitted a study on the conditions of this cooperation to the economic commission of this Association. It was summarised in the second issue of Eurabia (July 1975) and entitled, 'A European point of view'.

Declerq emphasis that "Euro-Arab cooperation must result from a political will. “The political interests of this cooperation must therefore be recognized.” In other words, economic exchanges were subordinate to the EEC's support of the Arabs League's war to destroy Israel. As far as Europe was concerned, the Belgian speaker advocated economic cooperation associating Arab manpower reserves and raw materials – probably oil – with European technology.

A medium and long-term policy must henceforth be formulated in order to bring about economic cooperation through a combination of Arab manpower reserves and raw materials and European technology and “management”.

This clause could have been at the origin of the massive Arab immigration into Europe from 1975 onwards which seems to have been connected to the EEC's economic agreements with the Arab world. According to Declerq, recycling petrodollars was to bring about the interdependence of Western Europe and the Arab countries in order "gradually to reach as complete as possible an economic integration". But this Euro-Arab economic integration would remain theoretical if the political aspect – that is to say the battle against Israel – was not achieved. Therefore, "A genuine political will must be at the base of concrete plans for cooperation and must be demonstrated at three levels: the national level; the level of the continent; at world level." From the same point of view, "Euro-Arab cooperation and solidarity had to be brought about through international organizations and international conferences." Joint Euro-Arab preparatory meetings and symposiums had "to be multiplied at every level – economic, monetary, commercial, etc. – in order to reach common positions.''

Declerq's proposals were all integrated into the resolutions of the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation when it met in Strasbourg (June 7-8, 1975), and were published in Eurabia. The political section of the resolutions targeted three areas: European policy on Israel; the creation of a climate of opinion favorable to the Arabs; the reception of Muslim immigrants into Europe.

Concerning Israel, the Association went along with Arab demands and called for Israel's withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines, deliberately misinterpreting Resolution 242. In addition, the Association called on European governments to recognize the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian Arabs, a fundamental point that they had to stress in the initiatives that a joint Euro-Arab policy required of them. The EEC had to force Israel to accept the rights of a Palestinian nation and the existence of a Palestinian state on the whole of the “West Bank” of the Jordan, and in Gaza.

Concerning Europe, the Association called for news coverage more favorable to Arab causes and special conditions for immigrants.

The Association requires European governments to arrange legal provisions concerning the free movement of, and respect for, the fundamental rights of immigrant workers in Europe: these rights must be equivalent to those of national citizens.

The Association considers the political settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict an absolute necessity for the establishment of a real Euro-Arab cooperation.

In the same paragraph, the Association considers that "the harmonious development of cooperation between Western Europe and the Arab nation" would benefit from the free circulation of ideas and citizens. The economic resolution expressed a concern about the political choices that:
had been prejudicial to Euro-Arab cooperation, such as the creation of the International Energy Agency and the signature of an agreement between the EEC and Israel, before the negotiations between the EEC and the Arab countries had been completed. On this subject, it made a formal request that economic cooperation between the EEC and Israel should not apply to the occupied territories.

Eurabia: a new cultural entity

The cultural resolution contained several statements, including the following:

Recognizing the historical contribution of Arab culture to European development;
Stressing the contribution that the European countries can still expect from Arab culture, notably in the area of human values;

The Association called for the teaching of the Arabic language and culture to be expanded in Europe:

Desiring that European governments facilitate, for the Arab countries, the creation of generous means to enable immigrant workers and their families to participate in Arab cultural and religious life.

The Association appealed to the press, to friendship groups and for tourism to improve public opinion regarding the Arab world. It:
asks the governments of the Nine to approach the cultural sector of the Euro-Arab Dialogue in a constructive spirit and to accord the greatest priority to spreading Arab culture in Europe.

asks the Arab governments to recognize the political consequences of active cooperation with Europe in the cultural domain.

The Resolution ended with a condemnation and a criticism of Israel.
While recognizing the State of Israel's right to exist, [it] condemns the Zionist wish to substitute Jewish culture for Arab culture on Palestinian territory, in order to deprive the Palestinian people of its national identity;
Considering that by carrying out excavations in the holy places of Islam – the occupied part of Jerusalem – Israel has committed a violation of international law, despite the warning of UNESCO;
Considering that the excavations could only result in the inevitable destruction of evidence of Arab culture and history;
Regrets that UNESCO's decision not to admit Israel into its regional grouping should have been exploited, sometimes with a great lack of objectivity.

The Strasbourg meeting was followed a few days later (June 10-14, 1975) by a symposium of the Mixed Committee of Experts in Cairo for a first formulation of the general principles and objectives of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The introduction to the joint memorandum of this meeting specifies that:

The Euro-Arab Dialogue is the fruit of a common political desire which emerged at the highest level and which aims to establish special relationships between the two groups.

The two parties recalled that the Dialogue originated in their exchanges at the end of 1973, and, particularly, the declaration made by the nine States members of the European Community on November 6, 1973 concerning the situation on the Middle East well as the declaration addressed to the Western European countries by the 6th Summit conference of Arab counties in Algiers, on November 28, 1973.

The areas of cooperation listed in the memorandum include cooperation in nuclear technology, finance, banking and capital management, business, scientific research, technological development, technical and professional training, the utilization of nuclear power, the building of cities infrastructures, planning, industrialization, transportation, urbanization, health, education, telecommunication, tourism, etc. The training of specialist personnel for the numerous projects envisaged would take place “either by sending teams of European experts with a view to training the Arab workforce, or by training this workforce in establishments Centers in the EEC countries”. The intention was to set up “effective [cooperation] and exchange of information between Arab and European universities” in research procedures, various programs and projects.

The section on “Cooperation in the fields of culture and civilization” stressed that the principal objective of the Euro-Arab dialogue was to bring closer two civilizations that have contributed considerably in enriching the patrimony of humanity. They consider that their cooperation in the area of culture and civilization should englobe education, the arts, sciences and information; and they affirmed that the principal objective of such a cooperation was the consolidation and deepening of the bases of cultural understanding and of an intellectual rapprochement between the two regions.

Various measures were envisaged, like the exchanges of experts, and the development of contacts in the fields of education and tourism. Lastly, the problems of the workforce of emigrant workers had to be settled by equality of treatment concerning: 1) employment situation; 2) working and living conditions; 3) social security systems. (9)

After almost three decades, one may ask: what was the impact on the European continent of this policy, which brought theoretically independent sectors – the economy, immigration, politics and culture – into one single block linked to the Arab world and its anti-Israeli/antisemitic paranoia?

The Spiral: Arab instrumentalization of the European Community

In this correlation between the economic and the political sectors, the difference in viewpoints between the EEC's perspectives and those of the Arab League are immediately apparent. The EEC is looking for economic gain, profit, through a strategy of expansion in the oil, commercial, and industrial markets. Its actions are characterized solely by a business-like pragmatism on the part of management technocrats who formulate programs of assistance and regional development, as well as massive sales of arms and industrial and nuclear equipment (e.g. the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq destroyed by Israel in 1981) in pursuit of profit.

The Arab faction, on the other hand, exploited the economy as a radical means to make the EEC an instrument in a long-term political strategy targeting Israel, Europe and America. The Arab political grip on the EEC's economy would rapidly impose on it the Arab political directives vis-à-vis Israel. One of the Arab delegates, Dr Ibrahim A. Obaid, Director-General, Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources from Riyad (Saudi Arabia), aptly expressed the spirit of the Dialogue, when the experts of Euro-Arab Cooperation met in Amsterdam in 1975:

Together and as equals, the Europeans and the Arabs can through a "strategy of inter-dependence" forge ahead to remove the thorn from their sides – the Israeli problem – and attend to the Herculean task ahead of them. (10)

The economic agreements between the EEC and the Arab world went beyond the sphere of trade treaties and led to Europe's progressive subjection to Arab political objectives. The EAD became – particularly for France – an associative diplomacy in the international forums, where the EEC fell into line with Arab anti-Zionist positions. A vehicle for legitimizing the PLO and for its propaganda, the EAD procured for it international, diplomatic recognition and conferred respectability and international standing on Arafat and for his international terrorist movement. It was within the framework of the EAD that the whole war policy of delegitimazion against Israel was constructed at the national and international levels of the EEC, in the trade unions, the media, and the universities. The EAD was the mouthpiece that spread and popularized throughout Europe the demonization and defamation of Israel. France, Belgium and Luxemburg were the EAD's most active agents.

In Europe, Arab strategy was mainly directed toward three goals:

1) attaining economic and industrial parity with the West by the transfer to Arab countries of modern technology, particularly nuclear and military technology;

2) implanting on European soil of a large Muslim population, which would enjoy all the political, cultural, social and religious rights of the host country;

3) imposing the political, cultural and religious influence of Arab-Islamism on European space through an immigration which remained politically and culturally attached to its countries of origin.

The EAD also served the Arab League as a channel to apply pressures on America via Europe to persuade it to align itself with Arab policy on Israel. At the geo-strategic level, Euro-Arab cooperation was a political instrument of anti-Americanism in Europe, aiming to separate and weaken the two continents by instigating mutual hostility between them and by constant denigration of American policy in the Middle East.

The fact that the import of Islamic manpower into Europe was synchronized with the expansion of European markets in Arab countries made it possible for several million Muslim immigrants to arrive without hindrance. The speed and scale of this operation was unique in history. Even in the course of the European colonization, the emigration of Europeans to the colonies took place at an infinitely slower pace. The number of European colonists, including their descendants, even after a maximum of one or two centuries, was incomparably lower than that of present-day Muslim immigrants in each of the countries of Europe after only three decades.

The political laxity of the European governments was worsened by the permission granted to Arab countries to export their culture and their mores together with their population (EAD Declaration, Damascus, September 11, 1978).

University of Venice Seminar: 1977

The Arab cultural implantation into Europe, was bound-up with the immigration – that is to say the transfer of millions of Muslims from Africa, the Middle East and Asia, together with their original culture – into the host countries. This cultural Arabization/Islamization had already been planned at the University of Venice (March 28-30, 1977) by the Euro-Arab Seminar on Means and Forms of Cooperation for the Diffusion in Europe of the Knowledge of Arabic Language and Literary Civilization.

The Seminar was organised by the Instituto per l'Oriente in Rome and the Arabic literature section of the Foreign Languages faculty of the University of Venice. The participants came from 14 universities in Arab countries, 19 Arabists from European universities, numerous other personalities connected with the Muslim world, as well as the representative of the Pontifical Institute of Arab Studies in Rome (Pontificio Istituto di Studi Arabi e d’Islamistica). The seminar was integrated into the Euro-Arab Dialogue, meaning it had the approval of the President of the EEC, the secretary of the Arab League and the foreign ministers of every country represented in the European Community. The Arab participants represented Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, Sudan and Tunisia. (11)

Among the subjects broached during the four working sessions, the European rapporteurs presented their reports on the diffusion and knowledge of Arabic and of Arab civilization in their respective countries. The Arab delegates, for their part, described the simplified methods of teaching Arabic to non-Arabs practised in their countries. The seminar ended with the adoption of a number of Recommendations. They cannot all be listed here, but the general tenor advocated creating in European capitals centers for the diffusion of the Arab language and culture in every European country in coordination with the Arab countries. This project envisaged appointing to European institutes and universities Arab professors, who were specialists in teaching Europeans.

The participants in this Seminar unanimously forward the following recommendations for consideration by the governments of the member states of the European Community and the League of Arab States.

1. Coordination of the efforts made by the Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe and to find the appropriate form of cooperation among the Arab institutions that operate in this field.

2. Creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centres in European capitals which will undertake the diffusion of the Arabic language and culture.

3. Encouragement of European institutions either at University level or other levels that are concerned with the teaching of the Arabic language and the diffusion of Arabic and Islamic culture.

4. Support of joint projects for cooperation between European and Arab institutions in the field of linguistic research and the teaching of the Arabic language to Europeans.

8. Necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialized in teaching Arabic to Europeans.

10. In teaching Arabic, emphasis must be laid on different linguistic skills: the teaching of Arabic must be linked with Arab-Islamic culture and contemporary Arab issues.

11. Necessity of cooperation between European and Arab specialists in order to present an objective picture of Arab-Islamic civilization and contemporary Arab issues to students and to the educated public in Europe which could attract Europeans to Arabic studies. (12)

The following resolutions define the forms of cooperation between Arab and European universities and their respective experts as well as the organization of the funds necessary for this Arabization project in the EEC. The last recommendation considers it necessary to establish a permanent committee of Arab and European experts charged with controlling the pursuance and application of the decisions concerning the diffusion of Arabic and of Arab culture in Europe within the framework of the Euro-Arab Dialogue.

19. In order to achieve the above, the participants consider it necessary as a result of this seminar to establish a permanent committee of Arab and European experts to follow up on the recommendations for disseminating Arabic and Arab culture in Europe; this be within the framework of the Euro-Arab Dialogue

This framework signified the approval of the foreign ministers of the EC countries and its presidency, in collaboration with the secretary of the League of Arab countries, as well as the other diplomats represented on the General Commission whose work proceeded in camera and went unrecorded.

The Cultural requests from the Arab bloc

Thus, from the 1970s the immigration policy integrated into the economico-political conception of the EAD (1973) did not envisage scattered immigration by individuals wanting to integrate into the host country. It planned a homogeneous implant of foreign collectivities numbering in the millions, into the European Communities. It facilitated the creation of groups who were hostile to their secular European environment, coming not to integrate but with the intention and with the right to impose their own civilization on the host country, while rejecting its secular institutions, considered inferior to those of the shari'a given by Allah. Whereas the EAD claimed for the Arab immigrants the rights conferred by the European legal institutions, the latter despised these institutions since they availed themselves of their own Arab-Islamic culture based on the shari'a. Thus, right from the start of the immigration, integration was excluded.

The Hamburg Symposium (April 11-15, 1983) of the Euro-Arab Dialogue was inaugurated with great pomp by the opening address of Hans-Dietrich Genscher, minister for foreign affairs of the German Federal Republic, followed by a speech from the secretary-general of the Arab League, Chedli Klibi. Genscher strongly recalled Europe's debt to Islamic civilization and emphasized the importance of the Dialogue in cementing Euro-Arab solidarity. He referred to the beginning of the Dialogue in 1973 and the importance of the political aspect which should not be ignored – in other words, the EEC's anti-Israel policy in the Middle East as a foundation of the whole economic edifice of Euro-Arab cooperation. He stated:
The Euro-Arab Dialogue would indeed remain incomplete if the political side were to be ignored or not taken seriously.

Both parties to the Dialogue, both partners, should always remind themselves of the joint Memorandum issued in Cairo in 1975, the Charter of the Dialogue. The Memorandum contains the following quote: “The Euro-Arab Dialogue is the outcome of the common political will which strives for the creation of a special relationship between the two groups.” We Europeans spoke out in a clear and convinced manner for a revival of the Euro-Arab Dialogue in the Venice Declaration of June 13 1980. Since then, the various working groups within the Dialogue have become more active and the prospects for the future are now promising. (13)

After two years during which the Dialogue was interrupted following the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty of 1979, the Venice Declaration totally aligned itself with the Arab political demands relating to Israel. It confirmed the national rights of the Palestinians "which is not simply one of refugees'' (art. 6). Article 7 required the participation of PLO in the negotiations. In article 8 "the Nine stress that they will not accept any unilateral initiative designed to change the status of Jerusalem". In the following article:

The Nine stress the need for Israel to put an end to the territorial occupation which it has maintened since the conflict of 1967, as it has done for part of Sinai. They are deeply convinced that the Israeli settlements constitute a serious obstacle to the peace process in the Middle East. The Nine consider that these settlements, as well as modifications in population and property in the occupied Arab territories, are illegal under international law.

At the Hamburg Symposium in 1983, speakers from both sides presented various reports bearing on the integration of the two civilizations. Participants were divided into three workshops. The first, 'Prospect for Cultural Exchange' examined the prospects for future cultural exchanges in all areas. The discussion covered : "exchange agreements between universities, exchanges between students and teachers and others, in the field of creative arts, of audio-visual materials, co-operation in translation, in transmitting Arabic publications to Europe, exhibitions and publication". The areas of this cultural cooperation were to be defined: "by a general cultural agreement between the Arab League and the European Community. This agreement would provide a framework for more specialized agreements to operate". A small joint committee within the framework of the Euro-Arab Dialogue would be "set up to monitor the working of the agreement, to examine and accept proposals for future projects and to ensure their execution".

The workshop suggested various schemes which were summarized as follows:

1. The publication twice yearly of a Euro-Arab journal devoted to specific topics with Arab and European contributors […] In addition a smaller newsletter is recommended which would list cultural developments in the Arab world, noting such things as intellectual debates, theatrical performances, important publications.

2. To invite Arab professional Unions and their members to conclude agreements with their European counterparts to further cultural co-operation and exchange. The Arab side specifically made the proposal to conclude such an agreement with the Unions of Arab Writers and of Publishers […] Such agreements should also include the encouragement of periodical meeting between European and Arab Unions of Radio and Television and between Associations of Film Producers and Actors to promote joint productions.

3. The convening of small, specialized or professional seminars on selected themes. Among topics already suggested are the religious dialogue, Arab historiography, book publishing and librarianship, investigation of the content of text books at all levels in the history of the two regions.

The second workshop focused on the: 'Social and Cultural Consequences of the Migration of Workers and Intellectuals'. The participants noted that, as Arab immigration turned into permanent residence, carrying out the Damascus Declaration (December 1978), was henceforth inadequate for the situation in 1983. It was particularly necessary to supplement the article stipulating the rights of Arab migrants and the members of their families to: "enjoy equality of treatment as to living and working conditions, wages and economic rights, rights of association and the exercise of basic public freedoms". It was felt that not enough was done to implement the tenets of this declaration. (art.3) The participants recommended the creation of a permanent institution to improve knowledge of migration and to formulate policies and programs "with the purpose of ensuring the highest level of welfare for the migrants themselves and maximum benefit for both countries of origin and employment with a spirit of genuine cooperation among the countries involved in the Dialogue." (art. 4)

Article 5 contained several proposals:

5. It is recommended that the social integration of migrant workers and their families in the host countries be facilitated by:

a) giving equal rights in access to the housing market, the labour market and the educational system and to vocational and professional training,

b) making the general public more aware of the cultural background of migrants, e.g. by promoting cultural activities of the immigrant communities,

c) supplying adequate information on the culture of the migrant
communities in the school curricula,

d) creating special schooling and training facilities for those who have functional relationships with the immigrants (e.g. civil servants, medical staff, members of the police force, teachers, social workers etc.),

e) giving migrants access to the mass media in order to ensure that migrants be in a position to receive regular information in their own language about their own culture as well as about the conditions of life in the host country,

f) broadening cooperation between immigrant groups and the national population and taking measures to increase the participation of immigrant groups in trade union activities and explore their participation in political life.

6. It is recommended that the Arab countries of origin strengthen their cultural support to Arab migrants in Europe.

The third workshop examined cooperation in the field of Arabic and European language teaching. This group stressed that this question was of the greatest importance because it formed a basic principle of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The decisions of the Venice Seminar (1977) were supplemented by those of the Hamburg Seminar (1983). They repeated the necessity for Arab language and culture to be diffused in Europe by the Arab countries and their specific institutions as well as by Euro-Arab cultural centers created in European capitals. It was necessary to teach Arabic to the immigrant children, and to ensure the publication and distribution of Arabic newspapers and books, intended for a cultured European public in order to give an objective and attractive picture of Islamic civilization. A program for carrying out all the activities examined was planned over a five-year period.

Reading the proceedings of the numerous symposia, one is struck by the difference in the speeches of the two parties. The Europeans employ cautious language, admiring and flattering Islam. Excessive tribute is paid to the great Islamic civilization from which the civilization of Europe has drawn inspiration. (e.g. Hans-Dietrich Genscher, German Foreign Minister, Hamburg Symposium, 1983). Platitudinous, humble excuses are formulated for colonization and Europe's anti-Arab prejudices. The Arab faction, on the contrary, adopts the tone of a schoolmaster wielding the stick, confident of the tolerance, humanism and greatness of his civilization, the spiritual and scientific fountainhead of Europe. Reproaches are not absent, particularly concerning the inadequacy of European measures against Israel, a central and essential point on which the whole infrastructure of the Dialogue is built. The Arab speeches hammer out in venomous terms Europe's obligation to deal severely with Israel (Zionist usurpation, the hand of Zionism seeking to kill the Arabs in every country, policy of institutionalized racism. Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with Racism had been hammered through the UN General Assembly in 1975). They remind them of the duty to recognize and teach the greatness and superiority of Islamic civilization and Islam at university level. Preachers describe the Islamic origin of Judaism, Christianity and all mankind, born as Muslims in its original purity.

The Alignment of the EEC

The EEC had fully aligned itself with the directives concerning Israel formulated by the Arab League as early as 1970, as can be seen in the Declaration of the Nine on the Middle East (London, 29 June 1977). Some of these declarations repeat word for word those issued by the 2nd Islamic Conference of Lahore (1974) and are not to be found in the original English UN Security Council Resolution 242.Thus, article 2 of the Declaration by the Council of Europe (London, 29 June 1977) specifies 1) the inadmissibility of the acquisition of land by force, 2) the necessity for Israel to end the territorial occupation it has maintained since the 1967 conflict, while resolution 242 mentions withdrawal “from territories”; 3) the obligation for Israel – in the establishment of a just and lasting peace – to take account of the “legitimate rights” of the Palestinians, which is not to be found in the valid UNSC Resolution 242.

Article 3 gives the Arab position:

The Nine are convinced that a solution of the Middle East conflict will only be possible if the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to give effective expression to its national identity is translated into a reality which will take account of the need of a homeland for the Palestinian people. They consider that the representatives of the parties to the conflict, including the Palestinian people, must participate in the negotiations in an appropriate manner, to be defined in consultation among all the interested parties. In the framework of an overall settlement, Israel must be prepared to recognise the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. Likewise the Arab party must be prepared to recognise Israel's right to live in peace within secure and recognised frontiers. (14)

This declaration had been prepared by the General Commission of the EAD meeting in Tunis (February 10-12, 1977). Concerning Jerusalem, the final communiqué published at the end of its second session stated: "the European side … has also marked its opposition to any initiative tending to alter the status of Jerusalem unilaterally. The Arab side said how much it appreciated this attitude."

On September 26, 1977, Henri Simonet, Belgian Foreign Minister and president of the council of the EEC stated at the UN General Assembly in New York that the Middle East conflict had to be based on security resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), that is to say on the Franco-Arab interpretation of them, in the French version, as adopted by the EEC after the Arab oil embargo in 1973,

as well as on the following fundamental principles: first, acquisition of territory by force is unacceptable; secondly, Israel must end its occupation of territories it has held since the 1967 war; thirdly, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and the independence of each State in the region must be respected, as well of [sic] the right of each State of the region to live in peace within secure and recognized borders; fourthly, the establishment of a just and lasting peace must take account of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.

51. The nine countries also continue to believe that a solution to the conflict will not be possible unless the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to give effective expression to its national identity becomes a reality. This would take into account, of course, the need for a homeland for the Palestinian people.

52. It remains the firm view of the nine countries that all of these elements constitute an indivisible whole.

55. One should recall here that the nine countries have publicly stated their concern over the illegal measures taken recently by the Government of Israel in the occupied territories …

56. Looking forward to peace negotiations, the nine countries reaffirm the concern they have expressed on many occasion that the parties of the conflict should refrain from making any statements or adopting any measures, administrative, legal, military or otherwise, which would constitute an obstacle to the process of peace. (15)

The second Islamic Conference, organized by the recently created Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) was held in Lahore on February 24, 1974 and its Declaration clearly manifested their policy toward Israel:

1. The Arab cause is the cause of all countries which oppose aggression and will not suffer the use of force to be rewarded by territory or any other gains;

2. Full and effective support should be given to the Arab countries to recover, by all means available, all their occupied lands;

4. The restitution of the full national rights of the Palestinian peoples [sic] in their homeland is the essential and fundamental condition for a solution to the Middle East problem and the establishment of lasting peace on the basis of justice;

7. The constructive efforts undertaken by the Christian Churches, all over the world and in the Arab countries, notably in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Syria to explain the Palestinian question to the international public opinion and to the world religious conferences and to solicit their support for Arab sovereignty over Jerusalem and other holy places in Palestine should be appreciated;

8. Any measure taken by Israel to change the character of the occupied Arab territories and in particular of the Holy City of Jerusalem is a flagrant violation of international law and is repugnant to the feelings of the Member-States of the Islamic Conference and of the Islamic world in general. (16)

The Culture of Eurabia

Whereas the EU offers Israel nothing but verbiage which can only be meaningless for the civilizations of the jihad (“just and lasting peace”, “secure and recognized frontiers”), it demands concrete actions from Israel: 1) cession of territories; 2) redivision of Jerusalem; 3) the creation of a second Palestine, another Arab-Muslim state on the historical Jewish homeland Islamized by jihad; 4) the obligation on Israel to negotiate with Arafat, (Venice Declaration, 1980), acknowledged as a terrorist leader up to the time of the Oslo accords (1994) and converted back to the jihad during the process which followed; 5) peace conditioned by a global settlement including with Syria; 6) Israel’s obligation to admit its responsibility and solve the problem of the Arab refugees from Palestine, although this tragedy was provoked by their alliance with five Arab armies, invading with the aim of destroying the fledgling State of Israel, and their subsequent defeats.

The EU complied with the demands of the Arab League and recognized Arafat as its sole representative. It thus conferred respectability and legitimacy on the godfather of international terrorism, the unrelenting enemy of the State of Israel, of the Lebanese Christians, and one of the modern symbols of jihad against the infidels.

The EU demanded that Israel return to the frontiers of the 1949 armistice, pretending to believe that such frontiers were viable. Its refusal to recognize Israel's right to its ancient capital, Jerusalem, implies a delegitimization and denial of the history of the Jewish people to which Europe by virtue of its Christian origins is still a witness par excellence. The EU adopted the pathological Arab obsession that conferred an evil centrality on Israel, eclipsing all others world events. On the level of Euro-Arab international policy, it explained, justified and morally legitimized a pathology of Arab hate, which imposed the destruction of Israel as an absolute and universal priority. By enlisting in the Arab-Islamic jihad against Israel, under labels such as “peace and justice for the Palestinians”, Europe was rejecting all its values and even the foundation of its civilization. Thus, it abandoned the Christians in Lebanon to the massacres of the Palestinians, and the Christians of the Islamic world to the persecutions under dhimmitude. The liberation of Israel, a minuscule portion of the lands colonized by the Arabs in Asia, Africa and Europe by war and force, provoked a paranoia that masked the sufferings of millions of victims of modern jihad.

At the level of European demography, the EEC's immigration policy encouraged the Islamist desire to Islamize Europe, and provides it with very solid bases. The real figures of this immigration were concealed from the public as if this constituted a state secret. The export of the immigrants' culture to the host countries, an exorbitant and unique favor in the history of immigration, was integrated in the agreements between the EEC and the Arab League as an inalienable right of the immigrants. It created an obstacle to their integration, all the more so as the bonds with the countries of emigration were encouraged and supported to the utmost by cultural, political and economic agreements, and by collaboration and exchanges at the university and international level. The EAD's European agents utilized anti-racism to eliminate any discussion of the insecurity, criminality and religious fanaticism of certain sections of a population, who generally refused to integrate.

EAD 's cultural infrastructure made it possible to import into Europe the traditional cultural baggage of anti-Christian and anti-Jewish prejudices against the West and Israel, conceived by the peoples and the civilization of jihad. It was in these years that the theme of jihad was resurrected in order to nurture terrorist activism. Immigrant groups became the vehicles to diffuse it in Europe, with the silent collusion of academics, politicians and the whole of the EAD's cultural apparatus. The discrediting of 'infidel' Judeo-Christian culture was expressed by the affirmation of the superiority of Islamic civilization from which, so they said, European sages had humbly drawn inspiration. Neither the centers of knowledge scattered over Latin and Byzantine Europe during the Middle Ages, nor in the following centuries the creation of printing, essential for the diffusion of knowledge, nor the scientific discoveries of Europe and their technological applications, nor the innovating evolution of its legal and political institutions, nor its artistic and cultural wealth can undermine the axiom of its inferiority to the Arabs, creators of science and the arts. This absurdity, obsequiously repeated by European ministers, actually constitutes a religious principle of the Arab world which acknowledges no superiority on the part of the infidel civilizations. The very term 'Judeo-Christian' civilization is rejected by fundamentalist Muslims (17) who only admire one single civilization, the Islamic civilization, which embraces, through Abraham – a Muslim prophet – Jews and Christians. That is why so many ministers no longer talk about Judeo-Christian civilization but about Abrahamic civilization. Moreover, Judaism and Israel polarize such hatred that Europe gladly rallied to Abrahamism, that is the Muslim conception of the Islamic origin of Judaism and Christianity, this latter not being connected with Judaism but with Islam, the first religion of mankind and antedating the other two monotheistic religions in the Islamic viewpoint.

The wave of Arab cultural and religious fanaticism which swept Europe was integrated into the functionality of the EAD. The EU thus repudiated its Jewish roots and rejected Christianity because it was born of them. The ablation of the historical memory of Europe in order to graft on to it the Arab-Islamic concept of history today makes possible the diffusion of a sort of negationist and guilt-inducing pseudo-culture, in which veneration for the Andalusian myth replaces knowledge of the devastating Muslim invasions. The obsequiousness of university circles, subject to a political power entirely dominated by economic materialism, recalls the worst periods of the decline of intelligence. The censorship of thought, the suppression of intellectual freedom, imported from Muslim countries in the package of a culture of hatred of Israel, today leads to the exclusion and boycott of Israeli academics by their colleagues in Europe.
Arab antisemitism/anti-Zionism was re-implanted in Europe in the conceptual framework set up by the Euro-Arab Dialogue and its planning of 'a movement of opinion' to support Arab anti-Israeli policy. Arab directives, backed by the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association – the powerful Arab/Muslim lobby – were transmitted to the highest political, university and religious authorities engaged in the EAD, and were given practical application in the media, television, radio, the press, the universities, the workers’ unions and a variety of political and cultural activities. The major themes of this Eurabian antisemite culture were borrowed from the Arab world where they had already been diffused since the 1950s. Their main arguments are: 1) Holocaust denial; 2) Jews exploited the Shoah as a means to blackmail Europe for Israel's benefit; 3) De-legitimization of the Jewish state; 4) The transfer of Israel’s history to the Palestinian Arabs; 5) The cult of the destruction of Israel as a source of the redemption of the world; 6) Cultural boycott of Israel and its isolation on the international scene – a policy which recreated the status of the Jew in Christianity, and of the dhimmi in Islam; 7) Culpabilisation of Europe for the resurgence of Israel; 8) Israel is a threat to world peace, which correctly interpreted means that Israel resists the Euro-Arab policy to eliminate it; 9) Anti-Americanism.

The all-encompassing Euro-Arab symbiosis produced by the EAD led the EU to tolerate the Palestinian terrorists on its own territory in the 1970s, and even later to justify and passively legitimize their terror against Israel, and later to actually finance the Palestine terrorist infrastructure and the inculcation of hatred in its schools. The churches and their media network were the most active agents of the moralization of Palestinian terrorism. Internal opposition was swept away by the political pressures and the funds of the religious organs involved in the EAD.

It was during 2000-2002 that Eurabia has perhaps erased Europe. In Eurabia the Islamic conception of history has supplanted the memory of the institution of the jihad and of dhimmitude which governed the relationship of the Muslims with non-Muslims from the seventh century to the present day. The culture of Eurabia today displays a combination of anti-Jewish, anti-Christian and anti-American animosity. The politicians and intellectuals who have brought it into the world with forceps have denied the wave of defamation and attacks against the Jews in Europe, a wave which they themselves have made possible and have irresponsibly stirred up for thirty years. They neglect the reality of antisemitism in the same way as they have neglected the attacks on the fundamental rights of European citizens, allowing ideological currents generating delinquency and terrorism to be established with impunity in their countries. The silence and negligence of the French authorities in the face of the wave of antisemitic aggression in the period 2000-2002 is only the tip of the iceberg of a global policy. Throughout the territory of Eurabia covered by the EAD agreements, the same uniformity of thought is to be found – the same taboos and censorship at universities and in the apparatus of information, the same historical and political counter-truths built into a dogma, the same tactics of obstructing publishers and bookshops, the same demonology of the Jews and Israel, the same attribution of guilt to Jews and Christians in regard to the Arab-Islamic world. When future generations will reflect in astonishment on the genesis of Eurabia, they will find that this mutation of European socio-political culture was driven by economic self-interest, financial greed, Judeophobic anti-Zionism, and anti-Americanism. The EAD, which bound the European economy to an Arab political strategy, planning the destruction of Israel, was the Trojan horse of that European drift toward the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence. The sorcerer's apprentices have opened the way to a disquieting future.

3. See Al-Mani, pp 70-73; 111; Bourrinet, p. 4. Analysing the formula of the EAD, John Waterbury writes: “The eventual bargaining took place in the form of a trade-off: the Arab political demands against European economic objectives”, ibid., p.25; Françoise de la Serre, 'Conflit du Proche-Orient et Dialogue Euro-Arabe: La Position de l’Europe des Neuf', in ibid.

11. Euro-Arab Dialogue. The Relations between the two cultures. Acts of the Hamburg symposium April 11th to l5th 1983. English version ed. by Derek Hopwood, Croom Helm, London, 1983; see the recommendations of the Venice Seminar, pp. 317-23.

The poll conducted recently by the EU which found that Europeans consider Israel to be the single greatest threat to world peace shocked many and caused the EU’s political leadership to cringe with embarrassment. And yet, according to Geneva-based historian Bat Yeor, the results are the culmination of a European policy now three decades old.

Yeor was born in Egypt and as a Jew was forced to renounce her Egyptian citizenship in 1955 when she fled with her family to Britain. In 1960 she settled in Geneva and has, over the past 30-odd years been a trailblazer in the study of how Muslims have, throughout Islamic history, mistreated their non-Muslim minorities and indeed, how Muslims today attempt to take over non-Muslim societies.

Bat Yeor was in Israel last month giving a series of lectures on her newest book, Eurabia. In it she presents her thesis that today Europe is both consciously and unconsciously surrendering its Judeo-Christian roots and embracing new cultural and political identities in which Arab and Islamic traditions, including the tradition of dhimmitude (the subservience of non-Muslims to Islamic culture and expansionism), are its central unifying themes. In line with her analysis, Yeor defines the new anti-Semitism in Europe as "an expression of the mutation of Europe into a new culture and society linked with profound cultural and religious transformations." During her visit, she discussed with the Jerusalem Post what she sees as the results of Europe’s abandonment of Israel.

"After the [1962] French withdrawal from Algeria, [French President Charles] De Gaulle, who up to that point favored Israel, completely changed France’s policy toward the Arab and Muslim world. There was a convergence between France’s embrace of the Arabs and its attempt to weaken the Atlantic alliance with America. The Arabs were to give France strategic independence from the US. France’s attempt, first through the European Economic Community and now through the European Union to create a unified European foreign policy, in competition with the US and led by France, sees European alliance with the Arab world as one of the primary sources of this strategic independence."

While, in Yeor’s view, "De Gaulle’s strategy was in the abstract," the European embrace of the Islamic and Arab at the expense of Israel and the US became a concrete policy in the wake of the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the subsequent OPEC oil embargo of the West.

In November 1973, French president George Pompidou and German chancellor Willy Brandt met in Paris and proclaimed a joint resolution aligning EC policy with the Arab demands against Israel. This, according to Yeor was the first official European declaration of a unified foreign policy.

"After this proclamation, the Arab League opened a formal dialogue with the EC. It was not a simple exchange between elites from the two sides. It established three bodies that would regulate European-Arab relations regarding the US, Israel and Arab immigration to Europe."

THE AIM of these joint policies was to force an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines, to enable free immigration of Arabs to European countries and to apply consistent pressure on the US to end its support for Israel, she says.

The main organ of this new framework was the European-Arab Dialogue, or EAD. The EAD encompassed political, parliamentary and cultural dialogues and also oversaw the European agreement to allow unimpeded immigration of millions of Arabs to Europe. According to Yeor, "the volume of this population flow was unprecedented in the history of European colonialization. And also unprecedented was the European decision to allow and encourage the new immigrants to maintain their ties to their countries of origin and thus prevent their integration into European society."

In a continuous flow of joint resolutions, Arab and European officials called for the diffusion of Arabic and Islamic culture in Europe through European universities. A pinnacle of these efforts, Yeor argues came during French President Jacques Chirac’s 1996 visit to Cairo.

"During that visit Chirac proclaimed that Europe and Muslims should write history together."

As to Arab cultural autonomy in Europe, the resolution of the 1975 conference of the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation anchored this effort by calling for the European governments to facilitate "the creation of generous means to enable immigrant workers and their families to participate in Arab cultural and religious life." The results of these policies on Europe have, according to Yeor, been nothing short of disastrous.

"What the Europeans did not realize at the time was that their embrace of the Arab and Muslim world did not simply involve their abandonment of Israel. What they were actually destroying was themselves.

"Europe is a continent built on the roots of Judeo-Christian traditions and history and values. By allowing unlimited Arab immigration and the Islamization of their universities, they were destroying their own culture. The new culture that has taken form in Europe is one of subservience to Islam. The new religion, in the post-Christian Europe is ’Palestinianism’ whose core belief is the need to destroy Israel and replace it with a Palestinian state. Palestinianism replaces a Jewish Jesus with a Muslim Jesus."

FOR ISRAEL, the European decision to merge its foreign policy with the Arab world has led to diplomatic isolation and demonization, according to Ye’or. It was in the wake of the Yom Kippur War and the increased European cooperation with the Arab League that European countries began voting against Israel in the UN and seeking to isolate it in international bodies. The 1975 UN General Assembly Resolution that equated Zionism with racism was a capstone of these efforts.

"Since the intifada broke out in 2000, the rejection of Israel and the embrace of Palestinians has taken on cult-like attributes,‘ Yeor notes. ’Every manifestation of public and political life must take up the Palestinian cause. In a very real way, the embrace of the Palestinians provides a mask for the expression of traditional European anti-Semitism."

Europe’s embrace of the Arab political agenda for Israel lies, according to Yeor, at the root of European unwillingness to cooperate with the US on the war on terror.

"Until September 11, Chirac and Villepin always said that the root cause of terrorism is the Israel-Arab conflict. This is of course the Arab-Islamic view. Like the Nazi vision of the centrality of Jews as the root of all evil, it is a vision long developed and adopted by Europeans.

"When George Bush said, after September 11 that ’you’re either with us or with the terrorists,’ he didn’t understand what was going on in Europe. The truth is that for 30 years the Europeans were with the terrorists. They can’t fight the Arabs; they have allowed the Arabs to dictate their policy since 1974. It is a huge problem. Part of the reason is also that they are terrified of terrorism. Their decision was to be subservient, not to fight and that has been their policy for 30 years. By attacking Israel, they believe they are saving themselves, but really, they are destroying themselves.

"Increasingly,‘ Yeor notes, ’the European-Arabian alliance has led to the increase in European anti-Americanism. For the Arabs, President Bush’s quotations from the Bible and allusion to the Judeo-Christian roots of America is anathema."

__________________O IsraelThe LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

The presentation The Spirit of Eurabia - translated from the French - was given 6 June 2004 at a seminar organized by the B'nai B'rith (Europe) in the French Senate (Palais du Luxembourg, Paris), on the theme: "La démocratie à l'épreuve de la menace islamiste" ("democracy faced with the Islamist menace"), in two sessions: "Les Islamistes et leur alliés" ("The Islamists and their allies"); "Vers un retour à l'esprit de Munich" ("toward a return to the spirit of Munich").

Allow me first to make a preliminary observation about the title of this session: the ‘return of the spirit of Munich’ – a title which I find somewhat optimistic. At Munich, in 1938, France and England, exhausted by the death toll of the Great War, abandoned Czechoslovakia to the Nazi beast, in the hope that by doing so they would avoid another conflict. The “spirit of Munich” thus refers to a policy of states and of peoples who refuse to confront a threat, and attempt to obtain peace and security through conciliation and appeasement, or even, for some, an active collaboration with the criminals.

For my own part, I would say that we have gone beyond the spirit of Munich, and the present situation should be seen not in the context of the Second World War, but in the present jihadist context. In fact, for the past 30 years France and Europe are living in a situation of passive self-defense against terrorism. This began with Palestinian terrorism, then Islamic terrorism, not to speak of the local European terrorism, including the Basques in Spain, the Baader-Meinhof group in Germany, and the Red Brigades of Italy of the 1980s. One need only look at our cities, airports, and streets, at the schools with their security guards, even the systems of public transportation, not to mention the embassies, and the synagogues – to see the whole astonishing array of police and security services. The fact that the authorities everywhere refuse to name the evil does not negate that evil. Yet we know perfectly well that we have been under threat for a long time; one has only to open one’s eyes and our authorities know it better than any of us, because it is they who have ordered these very security measures. In his book, La Vie Quotidienne dans l’Europe Médiévale sous Domination Arabe (Daily Life in Medieval Europe under the Arab Domination), published in 1978, Charles-Emmanuel Dufourq, a French specialist on Andalusia (Islamic Spain) and the Maghreb, described under the subheading “Une grande Peur” (“A great Fear”) the conditions of life for the indigenous non-Muslim peoples in the Andalusian countryside. (1) Today, Europe itself is living with this Great Fear.

At Munich war had not yet been declared. Today the war is everywhere. And yet the European Union and the states which comprise it, have denied that war’s reality, right up to the terrorist attack in Madrid of March 11, 2004. If there is a danger as Europe proclaims urbi et orbi, that danger can only come from America and Israel. What should one understand? For can anyone seriously maintain that it is the American and Israeli forces that threaten us in Europe? No, what must be understood is that American and Israeli policies of resistance to jihadist terror provoke reprisals against a Europe that has long ago ceased to defend itself. So that peace can prevail throughout the world, those two countries, America and Israel, need only adopt the European strategy of constant surrender, based on the denial of aggression. How simple it all is…

This strategy is less worthy than even Munich’s connivance and cowardice. At Munich there was some sort of future contemplated, even if war, or peace, were to determine the future. There was a choice. In the present situation there is no choice, for we deny the reality of the jihad danger. The only danger comes, allegedly, from the United States and Israel. We conduct a propaganda campaign in the media against these two countries, before entering into a yet more aggressive phase; it’s so much easier, so much less dangerous…And we conduct this campaign with the weapons of cowardice: defamation, disinformation, the corruption of venal politicians.

In the time of Munich, one could envisage that there would be battles that might be won. There was at least the Maginot Line for defense. In Europe today, dominated by the spirit of dhimmitude – the condition of submission of Jews and Christians under Muslim domination – there is no conceivable battle. Submission, without a fight, has already taken place. A machinery that has made Europe the new continent of dhimmitude was put into motion more than 30 years ago at the instigation of France.

A wide-ranging policy was then first sketched out, a symbiosis of Europe with the Muslim Arab countries, that would endow Europe – and especially France, the project’s prime mover – with a weight and a prestige to rival that of the United States (2). This policy was undertaken quite discreetly, outside of official treaties, under the innocent-sounding name of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. An association of European parliamentarians from the European Economic Community (EEC) was created in 1974 in Paris: the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation. It was entrusted with managing all of the aspects of Euro-Arab relations – financial, political, economic, cultural, and those pertaining to immigration. This organization functioned under the auspices of the European heads of government and their foreign ministers, working in close association with their Arab counterparts, and with the representatives of the European Commission, and the Arab League.

This strategy, the goal of which was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean Euro-Arab entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods, also determined the immigration policy with regard to Arabs in the European Community (EC). And, for the past 30 years, it also established the relevant cultural policies in the schools and universities of the EC. Since the first Cairo meeting of the Euro-Arab Dialogue in 1975, attended by the ministers and heads of state both from European and Arab countries and by representatives of the EC and the Arab League, agreements have been concluded concerning the diffusion and the promotion in Europe of Islam, of the Arabic language and culture, through the creation of Arab cultural centers in European cities. Other accords soon followed, all intended to ensure a cultural, economic, political Euro-Arab symbiosis.These far ranging efforts involved the universities and the media (both written and audio-visual), and even included the transfer of technologies, including nuclear technology. Finally a Euro-Arab associative diplomacy was promoted in international forums, especially at the United Nations.

The Arabs set the conditions for this association: 1) a European policy that would be independent from, and opposed to that of the United States; 2) the recognition by Europe of a “Palestinian people,” and the creation of a “Palestinian” state; 3) European support for the PLO; 4) the designation of Arafat as the sole and exclusive representative of that “Palestinian people”; 5) the delegitimizing of the State of Israel, both historically and politically, its shrinking into non viable borders, and the Arabization of Jerusalem. From this sprang the hidden European war against Israel, through economic boycotts, and in some cases academic boycotts as well, through deliberate vilification, and the spreading of both anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

During the past three decades a considerable number of non-official agreements between the countries of the CEE (subsequently the EU) on the one hand, and the countries of the Arab League on the other, determined the evolution of Europe in its current political and cultural aspects. I will cite here only four of them: 1) it was understood that those Europeans who would be dealing with Arab immigrants would undergo special sensitivity training, in order to better appreciate their customs, their moeurs; 2) the Arab immigrants would remain under the control and the laws of their countries of origin; 3) history textbooks in Europe would be rewritten by joint teams of European and Arab historians – naturally the Battles of Poitiers and Lepanto, or the Spanish Reconquista did not possess the same significance on both Mediterranean littorals; 4) the teaching of the Arabic language and of Arab and Islamic culture were to be taught, in the schools and universities of Europe, by Arab teachers experienced in teaching Europeans.

The Situation Today

On the political front, Europe has tied its destiny to the Arab countries, and thus become involved in the logic of jihad against Israel and the United States. How could Europe denounce the culture of jihadic venom which exudes from its allies, while for so many years it did everything to activate the jihad by hiding and justifying it by claiming that the real danger comes not from the jihadists, themselves, but from those who resist the Arab jihadist, the very allies that Europe serves at every international gathering, and in the European media.

On the cultural front there has been a complete re-writing of history, which was first undertaken during the 1970s in European universities. This process was ratified by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in September 1991, at its meeting devoted to “The Contribution of the Islamic civilisation to European culture.” It was reaffirmed by President Jacques Chirac in his address of April 8, 1996 in Cairo, and reinforced by Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission, through the creation of a ‘Foundation on the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilizations’ that was to control everything that was said, written and taught on the new continent of Eurabia, which englobe Europe and the Arab countries.

The dhimmitude of Europe began with the subversion of its culture and its values, with the destruction of its history and its replacement by an Islamic vision of that history, supported by the romantic myth of Andalusia. Eurabia adopted the Islamic conception of history, in which Islam is defined as a liberating force, a force for peace, and the jihad is regarded a ‘just war’. Those who resist the jihad, like the Israelis and the Americans, are the guilty ones, rather than those who wage it. It is this policy that has inculcated in us, the Europeans, the spirit of dhimmitude that blinds us, that instills in us a hatred for our own values, and the wish to destroy our own origins and our own history. “The greatest intellectual swindle would be to allow Europe to continue to believe that it derives from a Judeo-Christian tradition. That is a complete lie,” Tariq Ramadan has stated (3). And thus we despise George Bush because he still believes in that tradition. What simpletonsthose Americans…

The spirit of dhimmitude is not merely that of submission without fighting, not even a surrender. It is also the denial of one’s own humiliation through this process of integrating values that lead to our own destruction; it is the ideological mercenaries offering themselves up for service in the jihad; it is the traditional tribute paid by their own hand, and with humiliation, by the European dhimmis, in order to obtain a false security; it is the betrayal of one’s own people. The non-Muslim protected dhimmi under Islamic rulecould obtain an ephemeral and delusive security through services rendered to the Muslim oppressor, and through servility and flattery. And that is precisely the situation in Europe today.

Dhimmitude is not only a set of abstract laws inscribed in the shari’a, it is also a complex set of behaviors developed over time by the dhimmis themselves, as a way both to adapt to, and to survive, oppression, humiliation, insecurity. This has produced a particular mentality as well as social and political behaviors essential to the survival of peoples who, in a certain sense, would always remain hostages to the Islamic system.
The dhimmis are inferior beings who undergo humiliations and aggressions in silence. Their aggressors, meanwhile, enjoy an impunity that only increases their hatred and their feeling of superiority, guaranteed by the protection of the law. The culture of dhimmitude which is expanding throughout Europe is that of hate, of crimes against non-Muslims that go unpunished, a culture which is imported from the Arab countries along with “Palestinianism,” the new European subculture that has been raised to the level of a European Union cult, and its exalted war banner against Israel.
At Munich, in 1938, France had not renounced its own culture, its own history becoming German; it has not proclaimed that the source of her own culture was the German civilization. The spirit of dhimmitude which today blinds Europe springs not from a situation imposed from without, but from a choice made freely, and systematically carried out, in its political dimensions, over the course of the last 30 years.

The well-known scholar of Islam, William Montgomery Watt, described the disappearance of the Christian world from the countries which had been Islamized, in his book The Majesty that was Islam (1974): “There was nothing dramatic about what happened; it was a gentle death, aphasing out.”(4) But Montgomery Watt was wrong; in fact, the long death-throes of Christianity under Islam were extremely painful and tragic, as can be seen even in the 20th century, with the genocide of the Armenians, and the Lebanese Christians’ resistance in the 1970s-1980s, and for the last decades the genocide in the Sudan, and finally the relentless Arab jihad against Israel, which is only one of the examples of the age-old struggle by people devoted to fighting for freedom against dhimmitude, for the dignity of man against the slavery of oppression and hate. But that observation by Montgomery Watt – about the “gentle death, the phasing out” applies perfectly to Europe today.

* * * * *

1) Charles-Emmanuel Dufourq, La Vie Quotidienne dans l’Europe Médiévale sous Domination Arabe, Hachette, Paris, 1978; this book examines the Arab conquest and colonization of Andalusia — see chapter 1, “Les Jours de Razzia et d’Invasion”.I am grateful to Dr Andrew Bostom, for having brought to my attention the works of Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq, some of which will be included in his forthcoming compendium of essays and documents, The Legacy of Jihad, New York, Prometheus Books, 2005.

4) William Montgomery Watt, The Majesty that Was Islam. The Islamic World, 66-1100. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1974, p. 257.__________________________________________________ ______________________________· Bat Ye’or has written articles and scholarly studies since 1971 on the situation of Jews and Christians under Islam. Her books in French have been translated into English (www.dhimmi.org / www.dhimmitude.org). This presentation – translated from the French – was given at a seminar organized by the B’nai B’rith (Europe) in the French Senate (Palais du Luxembourg, Paris), on the theme: “La démocratie à l’épreuve de la menace islamiste” (“democracy faced with the Islamist menace”), in two sessions: “Les Islamistes et leur alliés” (“The Islamists and their allies”); “Vers un retour à l’esprit de Munich” (“toward a return to the spirit of Munich”). Her next book covers this subject in depth: Eurabia. The Euro-Arab Axis (Cranbury, NJ., Associated University Presses, 2005)

__________________O IsraelThe LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

FP: First things first, can you explain the term "Eurabia" to our readers?

Bat Ye'or: Eurabia represents a geo-political reality envisaged in 1973 through a system of informal alliances between, on the one hand, the nine countries of the European Community (EC)which, enlarged, became the European Union (EU) in 1992 and on the other hand, the Mediterranean Arab countries. The alliances and agreements were elaborated at the top political level of each EC country with the representative of the European Commission, and their Arab homologues with the Arab League's delegate. This system was synchronised under the roof of an association called the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) created in July 1974 in Paris. A working body composed of committees and always presided jointly by a European and an Arab delegate planned the agendas, and organized and monitored the application of the decisions.

The field of Euro-Arab collaboration covered every domain: from economy and policy to immigration. In foreign policy, it backed anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism and Israel's delegitimization; the promotion of the PLO and Arafat; a Euro-Arab associative diplomacy in international forums; and NGO collaboration. In domestic policy, the EAD established a close cooperation between the Arab and European media television, radio, journalists, publishing houses, academia, cultural centers, school textbooks, student and youth associations, tourism. Church interfaith dialogues were determinant in the development of this policy. Eurabia is therefore this strong Euro-Arab network of associations -- a comprehensive symbiosis with cooperation and partnership on policy, economy, demography and culture.

Eurabia is the future of Europe. Its driving force, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, was created in Paris in 1974. It now has over six hundred members -- from all major European political parties -- active in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament. The creation of this body and its policy follow the 23 resolutions of the "Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples", held in Cairo in January 1969. Its resolution 15 formulates the Euro-Arab policy and its all-embracing development over thirty years in European domestic and foreign policy.

It stated: "The conference decided to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform for promoting support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance." In the 1970s, pursuant to the wishes of the Cairo Conference, national groups proclaiming "Solidarity with the Palestinian Resistance and the Arab peoples" appeared throughout Europe. These groups belonged to different political families, Gaullists, extreme left or right, communists, neo-Nazis -- but they all shared the same anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism. France has been the key protagonist of this policy, ever since de Gaulle's press conference on 27 November 1967 when he presented France's cooperation with the Arab world as "the fundamental basis of our foreign policy".

FP: Is Europe's dependence on Arab oil a predominant factor in its pro-Arab policy?

Bat Ye'or: No, I don't think so. Arab leaders have to sell their oil; their people are very dependent on European economic, health and technological aid. America made this point during the oil embargo in 1973. The oil factor is a pretext to cover up a policy that emerged in France before that crisis. The policy was already conceived in the 1960s. It has strong antecedents in the French 19th century dream of governing an Arab empire and the exploitation of antisemitism to strengthen Arab Muslim-French solidarity against a demonized common enemy. Eurabia is not only a web of various agreements covering every field. It is essentially a political project for a total demographic and cultural symbiosis between Europe and the Arab world, where Israel will eventually dissolve. America would be isolated and challenged by an emerging Euro-Arab continent that is linked to the whole Muslim world and invested with tremendous political and economic power in international affairs. The policies of "multilateralism" and "soft diplomacy" express this deepening symbiosis. The Euro-Arab agreements are merely the tools for the creation of this new "continent." Eurabia is also based on the vision of Christian-Muslim reconciliation and has been strongly advocated by religious Christian bodies.

FP: For a moment, France looked like it was totally lost. But it seems to have adopted a new foreign policy, more oriented toward Europe. What is your view of this?

Bat Ye'or: France and the rest of Western Europe cannot change their policy anymore. Their future is Eurabia. Period. I don't see how they can reverse the movement they set in motion thirty years ago. Nor do Eurabians want to modify this policy. It is a project that was conceived, planned and pursued consistently through immigration policy, propaganda, church support, economic associations and aid, cultural, media and academic collaboration. Generations grew up within this political framework; they were educated and conditioned to support it and go along with it. This is the source of the strong anti-American feeling in Europe and of the paranoiac obsession with Israel, two elements that form the cornerstone of Eurabia. The new French orientation toward Europe indicates that France will work within Europe, and particularly with the new Eastern member states of the European Union, to convince them to forgo their Atlanticist vision and reorient their alliances toward the Arab Muslim world. This was French policy in the 1960s when Paris became the advocate of the Arab cause in the European Community. Until 1971, France had been isolated in the EC in its anti-Israel stance. European Community critics accused it of bias toward the Arab world. Faced with the oil crisis, the nine EC countries -- under French and German leadership -- unified their views regarding the Middle East conflict and this generated the Euro-Arab Dialogue's overall development.

FP: Tell us about the Prodi project where Tariq Ramadan and others have collaborated.

It was requested by Romano Prodi, the President of the European Commission, and accepted at the Sixth Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Foreign Affairs Ministers in Naples on 2-3 December 2003. It represents a strategy for closer Euro-Arab symbiosis to be implemented by a Foundation that will control, direct and monitor it. Last May the European ministers of foreign affairs accepted the creation of the Anna Lindh Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures with its seat in Alexandria, Egypt. Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, murdered by an insane man, was a key advocate of the Palestinian cause and the boycott of Israel. Lindh was known for her criticism of Israeli and American policies of self-defense against terror. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana was a close friend, calling her a "true European."

The Foundation will endeavor through numerous means to reinforce links of mutuality, solidarity and "togetherness" between the Northern and Southern shores of the Mediterranean, that is, Europe and the Arab countries. The authors of the project carefully avoid such characterizations since -- in the spirit of Edward Said -- they are judged anathema and racist. This is explained in the report's text, but I use them for clarification. It is the Eurabian context, representing a totally anti-American and anti-Zionist culture and policy, that explains the strong reaction against the war in Iraq -- itself integrated into the war against Islamic terrorism. A terrorism that Eurabia has denied, blaming Israel's "injustice and occupation" and America's "arrogance" instead. Eurabia has transformed Islamic terrorism into a cliche: "America is the problem" in order to consolidate the web of alliances that support its whole geostrategy.

FP: What is the significance of Solana's declaration?

Bat Ye'or: Solana is strongly implicated in the EU Arabophile and pro-Palestinian policy conducted intensively under Prodi as a European self-protective reaction to the American war against terror. If one examines the EC/EU declarations since 1977 on the Arab-Israeli conflict, one notices that they espouse Arab League decisions and positions: the 1949 armistice lines imposed on Israel, although never recognized as international boundaries; the creation on those boundaries of a Palestinian state not mentioned by UN resolution 242; the acknowledgement of the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, and of Arafat as its leader, with the obligation for Israel to negotiate exclusively with him; and initially the refusal of separate peace treaties. The EU adopted all these Arab League requests as well as repeated threats of economic and cultural boycott against Israel, constantly demanded by the Europeans' close Arab allies and their powerful lobby, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation. On 3 March 2004, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, when asked about U.S. proposals to requested democratic reforms in Arab states, declared:

"The peace process always has to be at the center of whatever initiative is in the field. . . ­Any idea about (reform of) nations would have to be in parallel with putting a priority on the resolution of the peace process, otherwise it will be very difficult to have success." (Reuters, "Solana: Mideast peace vital for Arab reforms"; see also Neil MacFarquhar "Arab states start plan of their own Mideast", International Herald Tribune, March 4, 2004.)

Solana just repeated the opinion of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak after his meeting with him. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa shared this opinion and refused to consider any reforms in Arab countries before the settlement of the Arab-Palestinian conflict, a settlement whose overall conditions imply Israel's destruction. Hence, any democratization and change of Arab societies demanded by the West are linked by the Arabs to its participation in Israel's demise. This link was rejected by Senior U.S. State Department official Marc Grossman when visiting Cairo on 2 March 2004. He said that the democracy plan should not depend on a settlement of the Middle East conflict. But Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Maher, answered him:

"Egypt's position is that one of the basic obstacles to the reform process is the continuation of Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people and the Arab people."

According to Reuters, Amr Moussa, speaking at the opening session of a regular ministerial meeting, declared:

"The Palestinian cause...is the key to stability or instability in the region, and this issue will continue to influence in all its elements the development of the Arab region until a just solution is reached."

Eurabian notables, whether Chirac, de Villepin, Solana, Prodi, or others, have continuously stressed the centrality of the Palestinian cause for world peace, as if more European vilification of Israel would change anything in the global jihad waged in the US, in Asia, and from Africa to Chechnya the latest horrendous tragedy in Ossetia is but one example. In such a view, Israel's very existence, not this genocidal jihadist drive, is a threat to peace. The Euro-Arab linkage of Arab/Islamic reforms to Israel's stand is spurious and only demonstrates, once more, Europe's subservience to Arab policy. Numerous Arab and Islamic Summits have imposed the centrality of their Palestinian policy on the world and requested that all political problems should be subordinated to it. The EU likewise.

FP: You often refer to a Euro-Arab Palestinian cult. What do you mean by it?

Bat Ye'or: It means precisely this Palestinian centrality that's promoted in Europe as a key to world peace. However, the Euro-Arab Palestinian cult goes much deeper than a political tool used for a Euro-Arab Partnership policy against America and Israel. It is linked to theological currents of Judeophobia and a replacement theology based on the Palestinization of the Bible and the rejection of its Jewish roots in order to delegitimize Israel's history and rights on its land. The Euro-Arab Palestinian cult symbolized the redemption of Christianity and Islam and their reconciliation on the ashes of Israel, the work of Satan -- a belief propagated by the media's continuous demonization of Israel, and Palestinian victimization. This cult brings together neo-Nazis, Judeophobes, anti-Americans, communists and jihadists. It is a revival of Nazi anti-Jewish and anti-Christian trends, particularly in its hatred of Christian Bible believers and America, the country that was determinant in the defeat of Nazism and Communism. In the 1930-40s, the Nazis had strong links with Palestinians, and those sympathies and alliances continued throughout the years after World War II, thriving in the Euro-Arab Palestinian cult that submerged Western Europe under the umbrella of the gigantic Euro-Arab Dialogue apparatus.

FP: But what does the public in Europe think about their Eurabian future? Are they aware of it? Do they go along with it?

Bat Ye'or: The public ignores this strategy, its details and functioning, but there is a strong awareness, anxiety and discontent over the current situation and particularly the antisemitic trends. This Eurabian policy, expressed in obscure wording, is conducted at the top political level and coordinated over the whole EU, spreading an anti-American and antisemitic Euro-Arab sub-culture in every social, media and cultural sector. Oriana Fallaci has given voice to this general opposition. But there are also many others. They are boycotted, sometimes fired from their jobs, victims of a type of totalitarian "correctness" imposed mainly by the academic, media and political sectors.

FP: What have you to say about the French journalists taken hostage and France's reactions?

Bat Ye'or: Chirac hoped that they would be liberated as a favor to French Arabophile and pro-Palestinian militancy, a dhimmi service for Arab policy that deserves a favor not granted to others. This tragedy has revealed France's good relations with terrorist organizations such as Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and others. It has also uncovered France's dependency on its considerable Muslim population for its home and foreign policies, as it appeared earlier that their advocacy would determine the liberation of the hostages. But the incredible conditions subsequently put by the terrorists prove that Islamist terrorists apply the same rules to all infidels. It also demonstrates the inanity of a policy of collusion and denial that has always whitewashed Islamic terrorism to avoid confronting it and has constantly transferred its evils onto its victims.

France's situation illustrates, in fact, what threatens the whole of Europe through its demographic and political integration within the Arab-Muslim world, as promoted now by the Anna Lindh Foundation. France with Belgium, Germany and perhaps Spain is ahead of the rest of Europe. Britain, Italy and to some extent the East European countries are less marked by the subservience syndrome of dhimmitude which consists in submission and compliance to Muslim policy or face jihad and death. Dhimmitude is linked to the jihad ideology and sharia rules pertaining to infidels and represents the complex historical process of Islamization of the Judeo-Christian, Buddhist, Hindu civilizations across three continents.

America has the choice of forgoing its liberty and adopting the European line of dhimmitude and supplication, or maintaining its resolve to fight the war against terrorism for freedom and for universal human rights values.

FP: John Kerry has stated repeatedly that he will 'rebuild alliances' with Europe, which he maintains President Bush has disrupted, particularly with nations such as France and Germany. Can you discuss how your scholarship on 'Eurabia' may affect the validity of this claim by Senator Kerry?

Bat Ye'or: Anti-Americanism was very popular from the late 1960s onward, when European communist and extreme-leftist parties then represented powerful political forces. It was a decisive factor in the Gaullist pursuance of a strong united Europe, and a major and essential pillar of the Euro-Arab policy and alliances in the 1970s. De Gaulle opposed Britain's participation in the European Community in 1961 and 1967 because of its Atlantic leanings. The Euro-Arab Dialogue construct, which determined the whole European policy toward the Arab-Muslim world, was basically anti-American already in the 1970s. Europe is a sinking continent and the rebuilding of alliances will be at the price of America's security and freedom.

The violent European anti-Bush trends are linked to a European internal situation. Bush's declared war on Islamic terrorism unveiled a reality carefully hidden in Europe and has exposed its extreme fragility -- a situation that was compensated by an explosion of anti-Americanism and antisemitism organized by Eurabian networks. Senator Kerry's declaration is inaccurate given the Euro-American context of cultural, political and economic rivalries preceding Bush's election, and especially the emergence of a new and complex situation that the European and American public have not yet fully understood. This is the threat of a global jihad, with its ideology, strategy and tactics, coordinated with its cells worldwide. The difference between Europe and America is that Europe denies it because it cannot nor does it wish to fight for certain values already forfeited. We see here the collision of two radically opposed strategies.

FP: Is there any optimism that we can have for Europe? How about to win this war against Islamism?

Bat Ye'or: Maybe the recent developments revealing France's failed policy and the horrendous ordeals of children and parents in Ossetia will induce Europeans to bring their politicians and media to accountability. The war against a global jihadist terrorism can be won only if the civilized world is united against barbarity. Until now European democracies supported Arafat, the initiator of jihadist terrorism, hostage-taking and Islamikazes. The war will be won if we name it, if we face it, if we recognize that it obeys specific rules of Islamic war that are not ours; and if democracies and Muslim modernists stop justifying these acts against other countries. The policy of collusion and support for terrorists in order to gain self-protection is a delusion.

FP: Bat Ye'or, thank you, our time is up. We'll see you soon.

Bat Ye'or: Thank you Jamie.

__________________O IsraelThe LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Historian BAT YE'OR, who has done pioneering work on the historical experience of non-Muslims living under Islamic rule, warns that rising Islamic immigration, coupled with conciliatory European attitudes, is slowly transforming the Continent into part of the Arab world. William F. Katz spoke with her at her home in Switzerland.

Question: In your new book Eurabia, you describe how people are slowly beginning to recognize terrorism and anti-Semitism – but that most people do not understand that this behavior suits the needs of some organized groups, including Muslim states, the political left and some groups within the Christian Church.

Answer: Yes, but not everyone has the same goal. The Church doesn't want to destroy Christianity or Western civilization. But some in the Church want to destroy Israel. And they don't dare proclaim it overtly after the Shoah.

They have found it convenient instead to ally themselves with the Muslims under the Palestinian flag – and by promoting the Palestinian vision and goal to bring about the demise of the state of Israel.

There is a very strong movement in the [European] church now, especially the Anglican Church, that would like to separate Christianity from Judaism because Israel is so hated. The rejection of Israel and the Jews is so visceral in some circles that those elements in the Church want to link Christianity to Islam – with the Muslim Jesus, and not with the Jewish Jesus – even though by doing so Christianity will be destroyed and Islamized.

Question: Can you tell me a little more about those who share your ideas in Europe? I think many American Jews view Europe as almost a lost cause.

Answer: The question is not how to save Europe, but how to save America. The same process that I have observed in Europe, starting with the Arab Palestinian subversion in the universities, I can see developing in America.

As for my friends, believing Christians or atheists fighting Judeophobia, they are aware of the Jewish and Christian trials under dhimmitude, which continues now for Christians in Muslim countries. They are aware of the jihadist terror war against Israel and America, and of European complacency in the face of – and even collusion with – jihadi forces.

But they are powerless because the policy of denial, of anti-Zionism, Judeophobia and anti-Americanism cannot be changed anymore for reasons linked to Europe's domestic and foreign policies. Europe has been subverted peacefully.

Question: It seems that those who stand up to tyranny in the Muslim world are often attacked as "insulting Islam." Are you threatened for your views?

Answer: Allegedly I am an "Islamophobe" just because I mention historical realities. Muslims are accustomed to an Islamic version of history in which infidels are the cause of all evils. A critical interpretation by non-Muslims is rejected as Islamophobic. Only this Islamic version exists in Muslim countries, hence, Muslim immigrants in the West are scandalized to hear a Christian, Jewish, Hindu or other version of their history, from their victim point of view, and they try to impose in the West the criteria of the Islamic version – in other words, to condition the West in thinking that jihad and dhimmitude mean peace and justice.

We are now living in a time of jihad. Except for Turkey, the Muslim world has not developed another type of relationship with the non-Muslim world. In general, it relates to Jews, Christians, Hindus and others as infidels. And even if it is not said, this is proven by their laws, their interpretation of history, their policies, the declarations of illustrious clerics, the nearly unanimous admiration for bin Laden and the execration of the West. Their elite does not want to envisage other interpretations of their scriptures.

Now there is also a peaceful jihad – which will engulf the West, like it has done in Europe, with the help of the elite, the politicians, the intellectuals. Or we shall suffer from a terrorist jihad if we refuse to submit and insist on maintaining our values. The West isn't prepared because it doesn't understand jihad.

Question: Daniel Pipes' slogan is "Fundamentalist Islam is the enemy; moderate Islam is the solution." But do you think there is hope for change?

Answer: I know moderate and brilliant Muslims, but I do not know of a school of thought, represented by teaching and publications, followed by millions of Muslims, called "moderate Islam."

Everyone hopes for a change, including Muslims. I never say "never."

But I think that changes will emerge if we start discussing these issues instead of hiding them under the carpet, and if we take measures to protect ourselves and become aware of language manipulation, like, for instance, pretending that jihad means peace and justice.

We should also support secular and modernist Muslims who are also targeted and hope desperately for our help and encouragement.

Question: Should Turkey be admitted into the European Union? Some argue this would help foster moderate Islam, but others argue Turkey may be a Trojan horse. What do you think?

Answer: It would be a mistake to admit Turkey because only an elite is secular and faithful to [founder of the Turkish Republic] Kemal Ataturk's vision. Bringing Turkey into the EU would only increase social, political and religious tensions.

Arguing that in doing so, Europe will save the soul of Islam, is nonsense.

Muslims must decide on their own reforms. Everything that will be imposed from the exterior will be rejected.

Europe is ill. It has to save itself. If Turks need to modernize and secularize, they can do it by themselves. Remember that Ataturk did not require help from the West for his reforms.

We are heading toward turbulent times. Racism, xenophobia and anti-Jewish paranoia are developing as a result of cynical and irresponsible policies rooted in anti-Americanism, Israelophobia, petro dollars and pusillanimous illusions of grandeur.

William F. Katz is associate professor in the School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas. His e-mail address is wkatz500@hotmail.com. You may e-mail Bat Ye'or through www.dhimmitude.org.What is 'dhimmitude'?

Dhimmitude is a term coined by Bat Ye'or, an Egyptian-born Jewish historian who was exiled from her native country in late 1957. The word derives from "dhimmi," the Arabic term meaning "protected," and refers to the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians living under Islamic rule. According to the Quran, Jews and Christians are "people of the book" and are to be respected by Muslim conquerors. But if they refuse conversion, they must accept legally defined second-class citizenship, as mandated by Islamic law. In Bat Ye'or's usage, dhimmitude is the Islamic system, formal and informal, of governing non-Muslim populations conquered by jihad, or Islamic holy war. It also describes the state of mind of conquered non-Muslim peoples and their relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims at the theological, social, political and economic levels.

According to Bat Ye'or, jihad followed by dhimmitude is the process through which Islamic conquerors crushed or otherwise oppressed – and still do – indigenous non-Muslim cultures, in part through measures that deny them equal status under the law. In Egypt today, for example, indigenous Christians cannot build or repair churches without state approval, resulting in an effective ban on church activity. In Saudi Arabia and Iran, the law prescribes the death penalty for Muslims who convert to Christianity.

Her books are controversial. Some historians view them as more political than scholarly, though others, like the eminent British historian Sir Martin Gilbert, who calls her the "acknowledged expert on the plight of Jews and Christians in Muslim lands," esteem her work.

Her most controversial contention is leveled in her recent book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (Fairleigh Dickinson, 2005): that Europe is being Islamized and "drifting toward dhimmitude" as the result of conscious policies adopted by European powers, especially France, intended to curry favor with the Arab world at the expense of the United States. She asserts that European leaders today make unusual efforts to cater to the sensibilities of outspoken Muslim minorities and to silence criticism of Islamic views.

Recent examples of "dhimmitude drift" would include the proposed law in Britain, strongly backed by Muslim leaders, which would curtail criticism of religion, and the May criminal indictment in Italy of journalist and commentator Oriana Fallaci on charges of defaming Islam.

Sources: "Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide" (2002) and "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam" (1996), both by Bat Ye'or.

__________________O IsraelThe LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

FOR over three decades, the historian Bat Ye'or has been a voice in the wilderness. Her warning that "jihad" had in the 1970s reemerged as a powerful force in much of Europe, fell on deaf ears.

Most Europeans denied what was confronting them. They were equally blind, according to Ye'or, to the fact that many European politicians were effectively in collusion with the jihadists, motivated by economic aims, a philosophy of appeasement or by the shared values of anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

The 9/11 attacks, along with the revelation that several of the perpetrators had been educated at European mosques and universities, led to a greater awareness of the Muslim fundamentalist threat in Europe. And the Madrid train bombings, which killed 190 people last year, only reinforced that understanding. Yet willful ignorance remains. Indeed, militant Islamists have been much better at understanding and exploiting Western cultural ideals and weaknesses than European and American intellectuals have been in understanding theirs.

Many Western liberals — viewing the world through their own narrow prism — still insist that Islamic terrorism is the product of ignorance and poverty, despite overwhelming evidence that most suicide bombers have been highly educated and relatively wealthy. Like Nazis, Communists and others before them who would destroy Western civilization, the jihadists in Europe, Iraq and al Qaeda know exactly what they are doing.

In "Eurabia," Ye'or points out that, for over a millennium, the effect of Islamic "jihad" through its political, military, economic and cultural components has been to subjugate and in some case extinguish once-thriving Jewish, Christian, Hindu and Buddhist civilizations in Asia, Africa and Europe.

She argues that "jihad" has now reappeared in Europe, not by accident but as the result of a grand design by French and other European diplomats to forge a new political entity, "Eurabia." It would fuse together the European and Arab worlds, dispose of Israel — the irritant in their way — and then challenge America for world hegemony.

The term "Eurabia," notes Ye'or, was first used in the mid-1970s, as the title of a journal edited by the president of the Association for Franco-Arab Solidarity.

Relying on detailed documents, minutes and directives generated by government bodies, including a little known organization set up by France in the 1970s called the Euro-Arab Dialogue, Ye'or charts the cooperation that has brought European democracies, Arab dictatorships and Islamic terror groups closer together. (Only last week, a Dutch diplomat was caught on film embracing a member of the Palestinian terror group Islamic Jihad in Gaza.)

But as Ye'or notes, what started as a scheme for a greater "Eurabia" controlled by the French (who would in turn welcome the flow of Arab oil and Muslim immigration into Europe) has turned into an attempt by fundamentalist Muslims to take over Europe.

Within a single generation, a significant portion of the population of major cities in a dozen European countries have become Muslim. Yet the crisis for Europe isn't about numbers, but militancy. Of course, most European Muslims wish to integrate, while peacefully practicing their religion. But opinion polls indicate that an increasing minority do not.

Bat Ye'or ("Daughter of the Nile" in Hebrew) is the pseudonym that this brave Egyptian-born Jewish writer has been forced to adopt following threats to her life. She has long been a resident of Geneva, and a close observer of a sweeping historical trend that many have been slow to detect.

Just occasionally, she sounds like a conspiracy theorist. The processes she describes are probably somewhat less systematic and more fragmentary than she suggests. But she is broadly correct, and the facts she lays bare will have enormous repercussions not just for Europe but for the U.S., as well.

Tom Gross is a former Jerusalem correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph.

__________________O IsraelThe LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

These were some interesting articles indeed! I know that many party affiliates of the Left meet regularly with their Muslim voters and the Muslims make sure to keep close connections so to improve their positions, but unfortunately Swedes of Jewish ancestry have not been as fortunate! Indications of lately seem to indicate that the Left has all but forgotten them and the history of WWII!

A Pakistani paedophile who abducted and sexually abused two young girls cannot be deported back to his native country because it would breach his human rights, it emerged today.

Zulfar Hussain, 48, was due to be sent home when he is released from prison halfway through his sentence for plying two vulnerable girls with drugs and alcohol before having sex with them.

But there was fury today when it was revealed that he had won an appeal against his deportation on the grounds that he has a wife and child here, meaning it would breach his right to enjoy respect for his family life.Justice Secretary Jack Straw - in whose constituency some of the abuse took place - today backed a new bid to kick Hussain out, while a campaigner for the deportation of foreign criminals branded the decision to let him stay 'appalling'.

Hussain and his friend and fellow Pakistani national Qaiser Naveed, 34, groomed two 15-year-old girls for sex over a period of months in his adopted home town of Blackburn, Lancashire.

The teenagers, who were in care, were plied with alcohol and Ecstasy pills, and on one occasion Naveed had sex with one on the back seat of his BMW while the second girl remained in the front with Hussain...

A fifth of history teachers in the four major Dutch cities have had to deal with not being able to or rarely bringing up the Holocaust because Muslim students in particular have difficulties with it.

This according to a survey among history teachers in secondary education by the Elsevier weekly and research agency ResearchNed. Teachers in VMBO schools in particular encounter resistance, elsevier.nl reported. The teachers said that in the VMBO schools four major cities, in particular, immigrant students were less interested than ethnic Dutch.

There is also good news: the claim that the war was forgotten and youth don't know about WWII anymore is nonsense. Students in secondary education think WWII is very interesting.

80% of teachers say that of all the subject, students think WWII is most interesting. This is followed far behind by the second half of the 20th century and the Greeks and Romans. The persecution of the Jews is most interesting, the conquest and occupation of the Dutch-Indies by Japan the least.

According to 80% of the teachers, WWII helps students understand the consequences of intolerance towards other people. 70% say that WWII helps students recognized the values of democracy, freedom and human rights.

__________________O IsraelThe LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Treasury restrictions on State handouts to the wives of terrorist suspects are illegal, European judges ruled today.

The decision may force the Government to change anti-terrorism rules following a legal case brought by three women whose husbands appear on a list of people said to have links with al-Qaeda, the Taleban and Osama bin Laden.

People on the list, drawn up by a UN sanctions committee, have their funds and other assets frozen, in a bid to cut off terrorist funding.
The EU enforces the measure via rules stating that no funds “shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of” people named on the list, unless authorised to cover “basic expenses”.

But the spouses of three suspects on the list went to court to challenge the Treasury’s decision to impose tough restrictions on access to social security payments worth several hundred pounds a week, including income support, child benefit and housing assistance.

Under the Treasury rules, such benefits must be paid into a bank account, and the spouse can draw only up to £10 in cash for each member of her household. All other payments from the account must be made by debit card.

The spouses, all living in the UK with their husbands and children, must also submit a monthly account to the Treasury detailing all spending, with receipts for any goods bought and copies of bank statements allowing Treasury officials to check that the purchases do not exceed “basic expenses.”

A UK legal challenge that the payments should not be subject to such conditions was thrown out by the High Court, but the European Court of Justice today declared:

“The freezing of funds of persons with suspected links to bin Laden, al-Qaeda or the Taleban does not apply to certain social security benefits paid to their spouses.

“The regulation ordering funds to be frozen applies only to assets that can be used to support terrorist activities.”

The judges said the Treasury took the view that social security and assistance benefits such as income support, disability living allowance, child benefit, housing benefit and council tax benefit granted to the wives of people on the list was banned by the rules drawn up by the EU, “as those sums might be used to cover basic household expenses, such as buying food for communal meals.

“If so, they would be made indirectly available for the benefit of the husband whose name appeared on the list.”

But the Treasury did make exceptions for wives who could receive the benefits under certain conditions.

The judgment said: “The Court considers that the interpretation used by the Treasury, to the effect that by receiving State benefits the wives indirectly make funds available for the benefit of their husbands, is not based on any danger whatsoever that the funds in question may be diverted in order to support terrorist activities.” ...

Milan, 29 April (AKI) - A radical Muslim preacher was arrested in the northern city of Milan on Thursday, sources close to Milan's Muslim community told Adnkronos International (AKI). Italy's top appeals court on Wednesday jailed Egyptian-born Abu Imad on terrorism charges.

The imam, who previously led prayers at Milan's central mosque was taken to police headquarters and was to be transferred to the city's San Vittore prison, the sources told AKI.

Imad was the imam at Milan's Viale Jenner mosque until early 2009 but was not previously arrested. Under Italian law, suspects can remain at liberty until they have completed their appeal, if a judge does not consider they are likely to flee the country or tamper with any evidence against them.

Italy's highest appeals court, the Court of Cassation, on Wednesday upheld a previous prison sentence imposed on Imad by a Milan court in December 2007.

The court sentenced Imad to three years and eight months in prison for conspiracy to carry out a terrorist act.

Ten other people were also jailed for the same offence, receiving sentences that varied from two to 10 years, while four others were acquitted due to lack of evidence....

LONDON – A lecture given by Israel's Deputy Ambassador to Britain Talya Lador-Fresher at the University of Manchester deteriorated Wednesday into violence when pro-Palestinian protesters stormed at the diplomat in an attempted attack....

Racially motivated? No. Islam is not a race. Religiously motivated? Yes, and very obviously so. But craven fear drives authorities to outdo Orwell himself, and sweep this affair under the rug as being merely "political" in nature. "Muslim daubs war memorial with 'Islam will dominate the world' - but walks free after CPS says he was NOT racially motivated," from the Daily Mail, April 30:

A British Muslim has shown 'no remorse' after desecrating a town's war memorial with extremist Islamic slogans, a court has heard.

But the Crown Prosecution Service has decided that graffiti proclaiming future world domination for Islam, glorifying Osama Bin Laden and calling for the assassination of the British Prime Minister, 'was not religiously or racially motivated'.

Tohseef Shah, 21, admitted a charge of criminal damage to the memorial, outside Burton College in Burton on Trent, when he appeared at Burton Magistrates Court.

Shah admitted spraying the words 'Islam will dominate the world - Osama is on his way' and 'Kill Gordon Brown' on the plinth of the East Staffordshire Borough Council-owned memorial, on December 10 last year.

He was given a two-year conditional discharge and was ordered to pay £500 compensation to the council, plus £85 costs.

Prosecutor Andrew Bodger said information about Shah and photographs of the graffiti were sent to CPS headquarters in London, for a review by senior lawyers.

He was given a two-year conditional discharge and was ordered to pay £500 compensation to the council, plus £85 costs.

Prosecutor Andrew Bodger said information about Shah and photographs of the graffiti were sent to CPS headquarters in London, for a review by senior lawyers.

They found there was insufficient evidence that the criminal act was racially or religiously motivated - which could have led to a more serious charges and a harsher sentence.

The graffiti was discovered by a council street cleaning manager, who reported the incident and photographed the damage.

The pictures of the desecration were shown in court.

CCTV footage showed two figures spraying the slogans on the memorial. Although they could not be clearly identified, the footage showed one of the vandals discarding the spray can.

Shah, Horninglow, Staffordshire, has no previous convictions.

He was later identified from DNA on the spray can and admitted his actions.

Mr Bodger said: 'Shah wouldn't give an explanation as to why he had done it and had shown no remorse for this very sensitive matter.

The CPS specialist unit was sent the pictures, as well as his mobile phone records, to see if there was a racially or religiously motivated connotation.

'It was decided there was not enough evidence to prove this, and they decided it was politically motivated. It has caused great offence to the community.'

Austria’s warm welcome this week of Iranian’s foreign minister, along with its increasing trade relations with the Islamic Republic, signal Iran’s widening axis that already stretches to South America. Indonesia, which hosts the world’s largest Muslim population, also has embraced Iran’s “strategic ties.”

Austria’s friendliness with Iran is even more significant because the European country is one of the rotating members of the United Nations Security Council. It has paid only lip service to sanctions against Iran, Simone Dinah Hartmann, director of Stop the Bomb Austria and co-editor of "Iran in the World System," wrote in The Wall Street Journal this week.

“To what degree Austria…would actually support tough sanctions is more than questionable,” she stated, noting that trade with Iran has flourished the past several years in contradiction to policies of other European nations to distant themselves from Tehran.

Hartmann pointed out the bitter irony of Austria’s aligning itself with Iran, which vows to “wipe Israel off the map. “Austria prefers to present itself as Nazi Germany's first victim when in fact it was Hitler's —born and raised in Austria—first collaborator,” she wrote.

The United States, Britain and France objected to the Austrian welcome mat for the Iranian official, which featured a friendly reception including hoisting the Islamic Republic flag along that of Austria and the European Union.

“Vienna has a long tradition of appeasing the Islamic Republic,” according to Hartmann. A former foreign minister and former president Kurt Waldheim were the first Western officials in their positions to visit Tehran in the 1980s and 1991.

She also charged that several Austrian companies are suspected of working with front companies that are associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. "Bilateral business relations between Austria and Iran are excellent, but still expandable,” said the president of the Austrian Chamber of Commerce during a visit to Tehran last year. Austria was once described as the “gateway to the European Union” by an Iranian minister....

An al-Qaeda-linked extremist group in Somalia has recruited more than 20 young people from Sweden to fight in the war-torn African country, the Swedish Security Service (Säpo) fears.

Somali Islamic insurgency group Harakat al-Shabab Mujahideen ("Movement of Warrior Youth"), better known as Al-Shabab, which is linked to al-Qaeda, is thought to have recruited dozens of Swedish youth to engage in terrorist acts, according to Göteborgs-Tidningen.

Gothenburg was identified by several sources as the largest recruitment base in the country, the report said. Sweden is also a fundraising hub for the group, according to Svenska Dagbladet editorial writer Per Gudmundson, who has written extensively about the issue.

"I think it's a very serious threat because it's not only a threat to Somalis in Somalia, it's also a threat to Swedish security," Gudmundson told The Local.

"People who go through wars and conflicts in war zones come back as trained operatives. We've had in Sweden people who've been trained in Afghanistan and come back as seasoned veterans. They are regarded with high esteem in jihadist terms and can motivate young people to fight. Also, when it comes to Swedish security, we are not immune to this. The Mohammed caricatures have shown places in northern Europe can be targets."

At a mosque - a converted food hall - in Gothenburg's Gamlestan quarter, a Danish-Somali man who tried to assassinate Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist who drew the controversial Mohammed cartoon published in Jyllands-Posten, tried to recruit followers, according to a Danish newspaper.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist who worked for several years with young criminal Muslims in a Copenhagen prison. He is the author of Among Criminal Muslims. A Psychologist’s Experience from the CopenhagenMunicipality. The book will be out in English later this year.

FP: Nicolai Sennels, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about your experience working with young criminal Muslims in a Copenhagen prison. Let’s begin by talking about how you got into your line of work.

Sennels: Thank Jamie.

Well., many people think that I took the prison job because I wanted to get a closer look at Muslim mentality, failed integration and Islam. But I did not. I was just looking for a job and having worked as a social worker taking care of teenagers for several years part time while studying at Copenhagen University to become a psychologist, it was natural for me to apply for a job involving juvenile offenders. I had no idea that seven out of ten teenagers in the average Danish youth prisons have a Muslim background. Since I was the first psychologist at the institution I was very free to develop my position as psychologist.

The main job was to find out the young peoples’ pedagogical and therapeutic needs and develop therapeutic methods fitted for those needs. And this I did and this is what my book is about. The unusual thing about my work is that I found out that my Muslim clients had certain psychological characteristics that my non-Muslim – mostly Danish – clients did not have. They were all between 15 and 17 years old, most of them showed antisocial behaviour and a big part of both groups came from homes with a certain lack of emotional support. I guess nine out of ten were boys and though the main part came from less well functioning homes I also had many Muslim and Danish clients who’s parents and elder siblings were well educated, had normal jobs and so on.

I worked in the prison for a bit less than three years and had around 150 Muslim clients and 100 Danish clients. I conducted group therapies and individual therapies and with such a large amount of both Muslim and non-Muslim clients I had a relatively large background material for understanding and comparing their psychological development and the underlying conditions influencing this development. Normal “real” research projects of this kind – consisting of long and several qualitative interviews – most often only have 20-30 subjects as background material.

FP: Ok, so some of your conclusions?

Sennels: Well, one significantconclusion was that having been raised in a Muslim environment – with Muslim parents and traditions – includes the risk of developing certain antisocial patterns.

About two thirds of all teenagers accused for criminal actions in Copenhagen have a Muslim background. For years the explanation for this phenomenon has been that Muslims are discriminated against by Danish employers and are thus unable to find a job. The consequence is that Muslims are poor – and this poverty then gets the blame for the high crime rate among young Muslim men.

As a humanist and psychologist I have to expose and oppose this faulty explanation. Explaining psychological development and complicated human mental and behavioural patterns by pointing on the amount of kroner, Euros or dollars rolling in to a person’s bank account every first bank day of the month is a very materialistic and two-dimensional view on the human being. What is first of all deciding our actions is our own free will and motivation – which are first of all influenced by the emotional, cultural and in some cases religious frame that we grew up in.

It is easy to establish a statistical connection between poverty and criminal behaviour – but what comes first? I saw a lot of young teenagers sowing the seeds for their own future unemployment by not going to school, staining their criminal records and developing unattractive social habits such as aggressiveness, insecurity and lack of respect for authorities.

FP: Did you find any realdifferences between Muslims coming from different parts of the Muslim world?

Sennels: My experience from working with Muslims is that the culture developed under Islamic influence supports the development of certain psychological characteristics. I had Muslim clients from most of the Muslim world: most of the Middle East, Muslim countries in Africa, Pakistan and ex-Yugoslavia. I did not register any major differences between the mentalities between these countries. The only real importance deciding the impact of Muslim mentality was whether the client himself identified himself strongly as belonging to the Muslim society or not. There was a quantitative difference from the often less Islamic Muslims from e.g. ex-Yugoslavia and the clients from the Middle East who mostly identified themselves strongly as being Muslims.

By far the most of my 150 Muslim clients expressed strong loyalty to their God, Allah, and their prophet but less than half was actively practising Islam by doing their prayers, Quran studies etc. But there did not seem to be any difference between the actively practising group and the group that could be called loyal but passive believers. Seen from the therapy room, the mentality stemming from Islamic influence on the societies where it is the dominating value system is so strongly rooted in the culture that Muslims are influenced by its dogmas and values no matter if they pray five times a day and can recite the Quran or not.

FP: Draw for us a psychological profile of Muslim culture. How does it shape a human being’s mind and behaviour to grow up in such a culture?

Sennels: The most important characteristics that I found concerns aggression, self-confidence, individual responsibility and identity.
Concerning anger, it quickly becomes clear that Muslims in general have a different view on aggression, anger and threatening behaviour than Danes and probably most of our Western world.

For most Westerners, it is an embarrassing sign of weakness if people become angry. This view on anger is probably consolidated already in early childhood. I have been working as a school psychologist for several years and bullying is a continuous problem at the schools that I work in. The interesting thing is that the children who are most likely to be the target of being bullied are the children that get angry the easiest. If people get angry we have a tendency to lose respect for them and in many cases we try to tease them to provoke them even more – with the pedagogical aim of helping the person to realize the childishness of his or her behaviour. Trying to get one’s will by acting aggressively or using threats is seen as immature and our reaction is often to ridicule or simply ignore them. Thus, the shortest way to lose face in our Western culture is to show anger.

It is completely opposite in the Muslim culture. While most of my Danish clients who had problems with anger felt embarrassed about it, none of my Muslim clients ever seemed to understand our view on anger. I spent countless hours doing Anger Management therapy with both Danish and Muslim clients and hence I had very good opportunities to experience the cultural differences concerning this specific emotion, ways of handling it and reacting to it.

In Muslim culture, it is expected that one should show anger and threatening behaviour if one is criticized or teased. If a Muslim does not react aggressively when criticized he is seen as weak, not worth trusting and he thus loses social status immediately.

This cocktail of cultural differences has sparked the ongoing debate on free speech all over the world. The free world’s criticism and jokes about Islam is met with anger and threats of terror. When a Danish cartoonist shows the Muslims’ prophet with a bomb in his turban to illustrate the fact that Mohammed conducted dozens of massacres and called for global violent jihad against non-Muslims, the reaction of Muslim leaders and their followers was exactly to confirm Westergaard’s drawing: They responded with jihad on all possible levels – threats of genocide, terror, economical boycott, lawsuits and using democratic systems in our countries, EU and the UN to challenge and destroy our laws on free speech.

The wisdom and bravery of any child in any school yard to people using aggression to hide their own insecurity because of a simple drawing would lead to more jokes and logic as a mean to pedagogically point out obvious human weaknesses. Unfortunately most of our politicians are not as wise and brave as the average school child.

FP: Expand a bit on the differences between Muslim and Western cultures in terms of self-confidence.

Sennels: The concept of honor in the Muslim culture is – just like in the case with anger – opposite of our Western view. It is common in the Muslim culture to be exceedingly aware of one’s status in the group, other peoples’ view of oneself and any signs of any kind of criticism. The aggressive response to anything that can make one insecure is seen as an expression of honorable behaviour. But what is honorable about that? What kind of honor needs to be defended by all means necessary – including the abolishment of women’s human rights, such as the right to pick their own sexual partners, clothes, husband and life style? What is honorable about anger and the lack of ability to ignore provocations and handle criticism constructively?

After listening to more than a hundred Muslim teenagers telling their stories about their feelings, thoughts, reactions, families, religion, culture, the life in their Muslim ghettos and their home countries, it became clear to me that to a Muslim such behavior is the very core of keeping one’s honor. But seen through the eyes of Western psychology, it is all an expression of a lack of self-confidence. According to our view, the base of being authentic and honorable is to know one’s strengths and weakness – and accepting them. The ability to think “your opinion about me, not mine – and mine counts to me” when provoked and being mature enough to handle criticism constructively is a source of social status in the Western world.

Unfortunately, the Muslim concept of honor transforms especially their men into fragile glass-like personalities that need to protect themselves by scaring their surroundings with their aggressive attitude. The show of so-called narcissistic rage is very common among Muslims. The fear of criticism is in many cases not far from paranoia. It is not without reason that self-irony and self-criticism is completely absent in the Muslim societies. Seen from a psychological perspective – whose aim is to produce self-confident, happy, free, loving and productive individuals; and not to please a hateful God or culture traditions – Muslim culture is in many ways psychologically unhealthy to grow up in.

FP: Ok and how does individual responsibility fit into all of this?

Sennels: To discuss individual responsibility, I need to first introduce the readers to the psychological term “locus of control.” Locus of control concerns if people see their life mainly influenced by inner or outer factors. In our Western culture, we see inner factors as more important than outer ones. Our point of view, our way of handling our emotions, our way of thinking, our way of reflecting, our way of reacting is all seen as ways that we decide our own lives. We may not always be aware of the way we think etc. and a whole industry has appeared because of that fact. Indeed, psychologists, therapists, psychiatrists, coaches plus countless self-help books and magazines are overflowing in our societies and are all aiming at helping us to become aware of how we decide our own lives.

None of these things exists in the Muslim world. The few psychiatrists they have are often educated in the West and whatever psychology and pedagogy that exists in Muslim countries does not have root in the Muslim culture but are ideas imported from the West.

Thus, when a Westerner experiences problems he asks himself: “What can I change in myself/my life to become happier?” This mentality showed it self clearly among my Danish clients. It was deeply rooted in them that talking about oneself can be a way of finding better ways of handling one’s own life. When having Muslim clients on my couch it was in most cases like having someone from another planet visiting me. Under normal conditions, Westerners and Muslims can communicate relatively easy – as long as it does not involve criticism. But in a setting where the whole concept is centred about that the Muslim client has to talk about his own feelings and thoughts because the psychologist thinks that it will help him to become more happy and able to live constructively, the “chain falls of the bike” as we say in Denmark. They shake their heads: in which way can they become happier if they expose the weaknesses that they have been taught since birth to hide in order to retain their honor? No way, José. I finally managed to develop a therapeutic method that to a certain extent could address these cultural difficulties, but therapy and Muslim mentality will probably never become real friends.

An important aspect of this difference concerning locus of control is that people who see their own lives mainly guided by outer factors – a fearsome God, a powerful father, influential imams, ancient but strong cultural traditions – very easily develop a victim mentality. It is thus not without reason that conspiracies and blaming the non-Muslims are so central in Muslim leaders’ rhetoric and politics. This victim mentality also dominates the mentality of Muslim immigrants, who often have a long row of demands for economic support and Islamization of our societies to satisfy their personal needs.

FP: Well it becomes pretty obvious why Muslims cannot integrate into our Western society. Crystallize the reasons for us.

Sennels: My experience is that you need three things to be able to integrate. You need to want it, you need to be allowed and you need to have the surplus. Very few Muslim immigrants fulfil these three criteria.

First we have to ask ourselves: why should Muslim immigrants want to integrate? They can live their culture, receive enough money, and have a full functioning social life with their Muslim friends without even learning our language — or even working. There is not really anything that makes it necessary to integrate. Of course there exist immigrant Muslims who want to adapt to the lifestyle and mentality in their new country but they are very few. In France only 14 percent of the millions of Muslim immigrants see themselves as “more French than Muslim.” In Germany only 12 percent of Muslims identify themselves as more German than Muslim.

A survey in Denmark showed that only 14 percent of the Muslims living here can identify themselves as being Danish and democratic minded. My experience from my Muslim clients is that they do not see their Muslim identity as compatible with leading a Western life style. Being a Muslim also means that you see yourself as very different and actually as a better person than non-Muslims. This mentality easily leads to apartheid and racism. This is probably the reason that even though Muslim immigrants are more than five times as violent as ethnic Danes – according to crime statistics - three out of four victims of violence are Danish.

The second criteria – being allowed to integrate – is also not very common. There is an exceedingly strong social control in the Muslim society. Everybody is keeping an eye on everybody and if someone does not follow the cultural or religious codex they are met with strong criticism and risk to be excluded from their society – often even from their own family. In worst case – and there are many of those – especially Muslim women live under a constant death threat that keeps them from entering our Western life style that includes such human rights as to pick one’s own sexual partners, clothing style, friends, religion and life style overall. Most of my Muslim clients saw their religious and cultural background as the height of civilization and morality – leaving it would be seen as a kind of cultural and religious apostasy by their kinsmen. Such acts often have severe consequences in not only gangs like Hells Angels and other tribal communities but also – and especially – among Muslims.

Finally, it takes a lot of personal surplus to integrate into another culture. It involves changing a part of one’s identity from belonging to one group into belonging to a group with completely other cultural values and traditions. It is not just like changing a bad habit such as quitting smoking – integration goes much deeper concerning the individual’s psychology. I met a few Muslim girls who as part of Western inspired teenage rebelling wanted to integrate and did not care that they were not allowed. Those girls did not posses the personal surplus and ended up in complete identity crises, going too wild, doing drugs and having random sex with all kinds of strange men etc.

For these reasons I am completely convinced that Muslim integration will never happen to the necessary extent.

FP: What is your view of the future of Europe in terms of the skyrocketing Muslim population?

Sennels: We are in the historical embarrassing situation that we have invited millions of people to our continent that do not want to integrate and are also not able to. Since the integration of Muslims will never happen – a fact I think that has already been proven years ago – we will end up with a significant part of our population that are actively working to Islamize our societies. There exist both Muslims and non-Muslims that see this Islamization as Islamic jihad – but it is more than that: it is human nature. People who do not feel at home where they live will naturally strive to change their surroundings. Muslims attempts to Islamize our societies have just begun — as they are feeling stronger and stronger in power and numbers. This process is pushed forward by Muslim leaders inside and outside Europe and helped on its way by a kind of collective cowardice called Political Correctness.

The World Economic Forum published a huge survey in 12 Muslim and 12 non-Muslim countries in their report “Islam and the West: Annual Report on the State of Dialogue, January 2008.” The report in general shows a great amount of distrust between the two groups of countries and discloses strong feelings of enmity. The last question in the survey is: “Do you think violent conflict between the Muslim and Western worlds can be avoided or not?” The report shows that a majority of the populations in all 24 countries believed that such a conflict can be avoided. But at the same time a majority of the 22 countries think that “the interaction between the Muslim and Western world is getting worse.” The majority of people still haven’t lost their hope but at the same time a majority see this hope getting smaller and smaller.

As Muslim immigrants push for Islamization and the original Europeans increasingly feel being exploited and threatened by growing and still more violent Muslim communities, a continent wide civil war might become unavoidable. We are already on our way to get our own European Islamic Gaza Stripes where non-Islamic authorities are met with flying stones and angry crowds while Islamic authorities such as imams, groups of elderly men and home made Sharia courts, are free to exercise their power. Such developments are very alarming and should be confronted with large amounts of police, strict laws, and cuts on economic support for families having more children than the country’s average and demands that Muslim organizations and leaders reform their version of Islam.

My guess is we will see more dead police men and kidnappings as a mean to negotiate the release of imprisoned Muslim religious or gang leaders, terror bombs, economical and practical support from Muslim countries to Muslim communities here in the West. Economic and police resources are already being drained by the many consequences of Muslim immigration and the need for profound reforming of our welfare system and for involving the army is inevitable in the long run. The feeling of safety and social coherence is already long gone in many parts in hundreds of European cities as a result of Muslims’ antisocial behaviour and enmity towards non-Muslims.

As I see it, the greatest danger is that the common European will fall into strong negative feelings and that the population and our authorities will feel pressed to compromise our own humanistic values in order to overcome the catastrophe. The sooner we handle the problems the greater the chance is that we can keep our important and unique human values.

FP: It’s all pretty depressing what political correctness and the Left has achieved in engendering and overseeingthis Musliminfiltration of our society. The Left wanted to destroy its host society and it shrewdly figured out how to do so through the weapon of “multiculturalism.” Talk a bit about where this might not all be hopeless, how those of us who care about or society’s values can fight back. What can we do to avoid the surrender that the West is engaged in as we speak?...

Here is video of my talk last Saturday at the Vienna Forum in Austria, sponsored by the Hudson Institute, the Educational Initiative for Central and Eastern Europe, and Kairos Journal. The Forum topic was "The Future of Europe and the Challenge of Islam." I spoke as part of a panel, "Historical Background and Thorny Issues," with Bat Ye'or, Douglas Murray and Paul Marshall. My topic was "Islam or Islamism?"

The first part of this talk was not captured on the video. Here is the text of the lost part: ''In order to counter the threat from Islamic jihadists who wish to import Sharia into Europe, it is essential to understand the threat properly and fully. If a distinction is made between Islam and Islamism, the implication is that Islam is essentially benign and compatible in its essence with the Western legal tradition and societal norms...''

__________________O IsraelThe LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.